Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[Mr. Eastman]

Before I address Cpt Banjo's response to my post, I'm putting the missing context back in view in the beginning of this reply to Cpt Banjo.

This discussion started because Mr. Banjo posted this:

By seeing authority in terms of morality rather than legality, he's arguing philosophy rather than law.

The casual reader is invited to examine what Cpt Banjo removed from my reply in making his reply:

I reject your assertion that I am arguing philosophy by asking this question: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?

If you answer "no", you admit that immoral law has no authority. Law without authority is a legal argument. Void ab initio is a legal term describing law that has no authority.

If you answer "yes", you admit that you are an immoral person because if the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, you will do so. (Following orders and obeying the law are the same, you are doing what you are told to do so. The Nuremberg Trials come to mind.)

If you don't answer, you admit that you can't answer no because you gut your own assertion that it's a philosophical discussion, and you admit that you can't answer yes because you paint yourself as a Nazi.

The issue of painting yourself as a Nazi leads to a second question: Mr. Banjo, if the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, will you do it?

If you answer no to both of the above questions, you are asserting that immoral laws are void ab initio.

Editorially replacing Mr. Banjo's original statement and moving on to my response and Mr. Banjo's current reply:

By seeing authority in terms of morality rather than legality, he's arguing philosophy rather than law.

I reject your assertion that I am arguing philosophy by asking this question: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?

By using the term "immoral", you are venturing into the realm of ethics, which is a branch of philosophy.

The casual reader is invited to take notice of Mr. Banjo's SOPDDD throughout his reply to my post. (Standard operating procedure, deflect, distract, disrupt.)

I stated: I reject your assertion that I am arguing philosophy by asking this question...

Mr. Banjo ignored the question and basically just restated his original assertion. In doing so, Mr. Banjo shows that he really, really wants to disconnect morality from law. This will be made even more apparent as you continue to read this post.

In asking my question, I laid out and examined the possible valid answers. The reader is invited to take notice of Mr. Banjo's failure to address and logically rebut those answers I provided.

There are ONLY THREE possible valid responses to the question: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?
Answer the question YES.
Answer the question NO.
Or don't answer the question at all.
(The fourth response, to answer the question MAYBE, can be dismissed as a viable answer. An answer of MAYBE contains a sometimes or a conditional NO, which would prove Mr. Banjo would not obey an immoral law under those conditions.)

Mr. Banjo has chosen to not answer the question at all. I will expound upon this below.

If you answer "no", you admit that immoral law has no authority. Law without authority is a legal argument. Void ab initio is a legal term describing law that has no authority.

No, because you are equating authority with morality. They are not the same. The term "authority" may refer to legal authority or it may refer to moral authority.

Mr. Banjo, with his use of the word "no", is denying my assertion that if he answers my question in the negative, he is admitting that immoral law has no authority.

Mr. Banjo would be admitting that he will not obey an immoral law if he answers the question in the negative.

Thus, rephrasing the question as a statement because of Mr. Banjo's non-responsive reply: If Mr. Banjo states he will not obey an immoral law, Then Mr. Banjo would be proving that such an immoral law has no authority over him.

That is the bottom line on the negative answer to the question.

Mr. Banjo does not believe, and refuses to admit, that immoral law does not have any authority. Therefore he must not answer the question in the negative or else he admits that immoral law does not have any authority.

As stated: There are ONLY THREE possible valid responses. Answer the question YES, answer the question NO, or don't answer the question at all.

Since Mr. Banjo does not provide an answer of "no", that leaves the answer of "yes" or the answer of silence.

Replacing what Mr. Banjo conveniently edited out of my original post:

If you answer "yes", you admit that you are an immoral person because if the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, you will do so. (Following orders and obeying the law are the same, you are doing what you are told to do so. The Nuremberg Trials come to mind.)

As stated: There are ONLY THREE possible valid responses. Answer the question YES, answer the question NO, or don't answer the question at all.

That's a tough situation for Mr. Banjo. He doesn't dare state he will obey immoral laws, because that is exactly what Nazi's did. So instead, he just edits my analysis of a positive answer to the question right out of what he is replying to.

Remember folks, If he can't answer "yes", that leaves the answer of "no" or the answer of silence.

He's already shown he won't answer "no", so that leaves the answer of silence. Do not let his following verbiage make you think his answer is anything but silence. He has NOT answered the question.

If you don't answer, you admit that you can't answer no because you gut your own assertion that it's a philosophical discussion, and you admit that you can't answer yes because you paint yourself as a Nazi.

I can decline to answer because you are using an ambiguous term -- "duty". I may have a legal duty, but may not have a moral duty. Again, you're conflating legality with morality.

Regardless of the actual words you just used, you are asserting that you ARE declining to answer and your convenient excuse is to assert that "duty" is an ambiguous term.

Duty, obligation, requirement... These words all mean something that you MUST do, regardless of the compulsion that forces compliance.

So rewording the question to illustrate for the casual reader that what you just did (again) is SOPDDD.

Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?
Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any requirement to obey an immoral law?
Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any obligation to obey an immoral law?

You state: "I may have a legal duty, but may not have a moral duty."

So one last illustration:
Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any legal duty to obey an immoral law?

Mr. Banjo, you state that I am "conflating legality with morality."

Conflating (1. To bring together; meld or fuse. 2. To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.)

I am conflating legality with morality because immoral law has no authority.

That is the bottom line of this argument...

You refuse to admit that immoral law has no authority. You assert, mostly by implication, your belief that immoral law does have authority.

I've called you on that statist belief right from the beginning... Because of your obfuscation, I'll reword the question for you: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any legal duty to obey an immoral law? And to make the point perfectly clear, I'm asking a previous question that you also ignored and edited out of my reply: Mr. Banjo, if the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, will you do it?

If immoral law has legal authority, then everything the Nazi's did is perfectly okay with you, because everything the Nazi's did was according to German law at the time, which according to you had valid authority.

If the U.S. Congress passed laws like the following, that would be perfectly okay with you as well, just so long as they followed proper procedure in enacting such laws so that the law would have valid authority.

As German Jews, Anne and her family are very affected by the anti-Jewish laws brought on by the Nazis, which restrict them from everyday activities, including owning businesses. These laws were especially harsh after 1940. They also must wear yellow stars with the word "Jew" at all times.
Source: "BookRags Study Guide on Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl.
" http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-annefrank/

Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service
"Civil servants who are not of Aryan (non-Jewish) descent are to be retired."

Law Regarding Admission to the Bar
"Persons who, according to the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of April 7, 1933, are of non-Aryan descent may be denied admission to the bar."

Law Against the Crowding of German Schools
"In new admissions, care is to be taken that the number of Reich Germans who, according to the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of April 7, 1933, are of non-Aryan descent, out of the total attending each school and each faculty, does not exceed the proportion of non-Aryans within the Reich German population."

Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor
"Marriages between Jews and subjects of German or kindred blood are forbidden...Extramarital intercourse forbidden between Jews and subjects of German or kindred blood...Jews are forbidden to fly the Reich and national flag and to display Reich colors...They are, on the other hand, allowed to display the Jewish colors...Whoever violates the prohibition...will be punished by penal servitude."

Reich Citizenship Law
"A Reich citizen is only that subject of German or kindred blood who proves by his conduct that he is willing and suited loyally to serve the German people and the Reich."

Reich Citizenship Law
"A Jew cannot be a Reich citizen. He is not entitled to the right to vote on political matters; he cannot hold public office...A Jew is anyone descended from at least three grandparents who are fully Jewish as regards race...Also deemed a Jew is a Jewish Mischlung subject who is descended from two fully Jewish grandparents and...who belonged to the Jewish religious community...who was married to a Jew...who is the offspring of a marriage concluded by a Jew...who is an offspring of extramarital intercourse with a Jew..."

The Law Regarding Changes of Family Names
"Jews may be given only such given names as are listed in the Guidelines on the Use of Given Names issued by the Reich Minister of the Interior... Insofar as Jews have other given names than those which may be given to Jews...they are obligated, beginning January 1, 1939, to assume an additional given name, namely the given name Israel in the case of males and the given name Sarah in the case of females."
Source: Anti Defamation League: Nazi Anti-Jewish Laws.

Bold emphasis mine to highlight the laws that have valid authority according to Mr. Banjo.

You assert that immoral law has authority. If you were a Jew or other undesirable, you would have a different view.

Mr. Banjo's refusal to answer the question was not unexpected. His choices are to admit that immoral law has no authority or admit that he condones the Nazi atrocities that are the results of immoral law being treated as having authority that it does not have.

Mr. Banjo's belief system and mindset are what allowed those atrocities to happen in Nazi Germany. It was wrong then, It is wrong now.

Turning now, to the rest of Mr. Banjo's post...

He saved the best refutations of my posts for last. He really refuted all the points I posted in this last part of his reply:

Mr E, it's quite clear that the only reason you posted here and have continued to drag this discussion out without clearly stating the point you're trying to make is that you crave attention.

An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.

So are you telling me that you are not smart enough to have figured out from my original question, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? and the ensuing debate, that my position is that You can not give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

Or are you telling me that you are not smart enough to have figured out from my other question, Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law? and the supporting text, that my position is Immoral law has no authority and is void ab initio?

Heck, the day before you posted here you posted over on the Google misc.taxes site, announcing "Back under my own name". Having received zero responses, you decided to try your luck at Quatloos, where people have actually paid attention to you.

Heck, If the misc.taxes USENET wasn't dead because all the Statists are now the Q-crew hanging out at Quatloos.com, The very same discussion would have happened there.

Oh by the way, It's not Google's misc.taxes site. Google is just a browser based interface to USENET. USENET was originally a text only, newsreader based bulletin board. My Thunderbird email client can directly access USENET via my ISP's USENET servers. I'm of the opinion that USENET is being superseded by good quality open source free bulletin board software that installs on a hosted web server fairly easily. Plus, such software is continually updated with anti spam defense devices.

The fact that the attention you have received has been completely derisive and the fact that you keep coming back for more suggests you have a masochistic streak.

Yeah, that must be true because you asserted it.

I want to thank you for admitting what the True Colors the Q-crew actually are. "the attention you have received has been completely derisive" and never bothers to address the logic presented, much like your refusal to answer the logic in my specific question to you and the reasoning presented in the analysis of the only three valid answers.

Look at your own website -- hardly anyone other than yourself has posted there or expressed any interest in your demonstrably false pontifications regarding tax law.

And that has what to do with your belief that immoral law has valid authority?

Well, I'm not going to act as an enabler any more until you come to the point.

Translation: If I stop responding to MR. Eastman's posts, he'll stop publicly analyzing my weak logic.

Fine. Does this mean you will be leaving this topic thread? Don't post an answer. I'll figure it out when I don't read any more of your posts.

Others can reinforce your feelings of importance by deigning to respond to you, but to me you're just a gasbag who has historically posted frivolous anti-tax arguments. You're boring, Mr. E, extremely boring. Let me know when you actually get to the point.

Translation: If I stop responding to MR. Eastman's posts, he'll stop publicly analyzing my weak logic.

[Mr. Eastman]

I reject your assertion that I am arguing philosophy by asking this question: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?

Again, more intellectual dishonesty and a non-questions.

Pot shot noted. Assertion without proof, logic, or merit noted.

The actual question here is by "whose" definition of immoral?

Why? Do you have a different set of morals from the rest of humanity? Do you believe robbery, murder, extortion, theft, rape, and enslavement are good and moral actions?

Mr. Eastman can reject whatever he likes, it will not change the facts when dealing with his maunderings.

Pot shot noted. Vacuous post noted.

[Mr. Eastman]

Basically, Eastman is trying to justify his actions of doing what ever he wants by wrapping it in the guise of an ethics and morality debate.

Now why would I need to justify my actions to the Q-crew? If I was going to do what ever I want, I would just do it.

The casual reader is invited to notice that you have failed to state just what those actions are that you believe I am trying to justify. You don't state just what those actions are, so you appear to be hoping that the casual reader will imagine some horrible thing I might do. You get a 10.0 on the execution of the character assassination... But you only get a 0.5 on the effect.

Therefore the pot shot is noted, and the lack of logic is noted.

Basically, Eastman is trying to justify his actions of doing what ever he wants by wrapping it in the guise of an ethics and morality debate. In short, if a law prevents him from doing something, it is immoral and/or unethical to him and therefore he can ignore the law.

Written words are not your first language are they? Let me correct your statement so that it makes sense:

"Basically, Eastman is trying to justify his actions of doing what ever he wants by wrapping it in the guise of an ethics and morality debate. In short, if a law prevents him from doing something, and if that law is immoral and/or unethical in his mind, then he can justify ignoring the law."

The casual reader is invited to notice that you have failed to provide the law you believe I consider immoral and/or unethical.

Actually, it is the Q-crew trying to justify unlimited government, immoral law, government robbery, government theft, government extortion, government murder, and government enslavement that drives the debate in this topic.

More importantly, he expects everybody else to buy into his twaddle and rot,

Pot shot noted. Your opinion that what I post is twaddle and rot is noted and dismissed.

More importantly, he expects everybody else to buy into his twaddle and rot,

Your psychic mind reading needs a tune up as well.

I do not expect anybody to buy into anything I post, especially the Q-crew.

What I hope for is logical, coherent, point by point examinations of the points I present, done by honest, intelligent, and mature posters.

What I expect is exactly what you have posted. Personal attacks; opinions posted as proven facts; distractions, deflections, and disruptions; and; illogical, irrational, and emotional words to mask the cognitive dissonance I create with my posts.

More importantly, he expects everybody else to buy into his twaddle and rot, and sadly, there will be a few like minded individuals who want to do whatever they want, whenever they want

Like government officers, agents, and employees who ignore the limits of their authority, and people like you who support such actions.

More importantly, he expects everybody else to buy into his twaddle and rot, and sadly, there will be a few like minded individuals who want to do whatever they want, whenever they want - rules, regulations, laws, societal mores, ethics, and morality be damned.

Morality be damned?

CaptainKickback, If the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, will you do it?

This question goes right to the heart of YOUR morality.

Eastman and his ilk consider themselves to (individually) be the center of all creation and thus gifted with (only in their mind) the right to do as they please.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Looks like Jefferson is one of Eastman's ilk. Looks like it's not just in my mind. The pot shot of calling Eastman and like minded individuals like Thomas Jefferson "ilk" is noted.

In short, they are a 3-year old in adult bodies. Also likely horrible employees, rotten neighbors, bad spouses, even worse parents, and generally abusive to everyone who does not do as they demand.

Unfounded assertion noted.
Ad hominem personal attack noted.
Attempt to disrupt the topic debated noted.
Prejudiced generalization noted.

Guess what, we will not be kneeling before Zod.

Well of course not. You can't be in two places at once and you can't serve two masters. And since you are busy kneeling before your government masters like a good little brainwashed slave...

[Judge Roy Bean]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only person who gave up trying to read this? Even "casually?"

The poster must be desperate to drive traffic to his site.

[Famspear]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only person who gave up trying to read this? Even "casually?"

The poster must be desperate to drive traffic to his site.

Memo: To Dale R. Eastman:

Dude, you need to find a hobby or something.

[.]

"Mr. Eastman" amply demonstrates why the "PageDown" key exists.

[Famspear]

"Mr. Eastman" amply demonstrates why the "PageDown" key exists.

"PageDown" key? Where? Hmmm. Oh.

OK.

"Getting to know your keyboard. Chapter 1...."

Hey, this is neat.

Wheeeeeeee!

You know, the faster I scroll down through Eastman's posts, the more entertaining they become!

[LPC]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only person who gave up trying to read this? Even "casually?"

No, you're not alone. I scrolled through and decided that someone else was going to have to wade through all that crap.

And notice that all of it was posted within about 30 minutes. Which suggests to me that he works for days or weeks offline, generating volumes of drivel, and then pastes it all online at once.

It's not so much a round in a conversation or debate as it is a fusillade.

[Pottapaug1938]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only person who gave up trying to read this? Even "casually?"

The poster must be desperate to drive traffic to his site.

I, too, have given up trying to read Mr. Eastman's dyspeptic [here's a pot shot to be noted, Mr. Eastman] ramblings. At most, I skim them. He plainly has a passionate, not to say rabid, belief that the government cannot tax "the people" because "the people" have no taxing authority of their own; and the idea that people can give up a certain degree of their rights to do as they please with whatever they please, for the common good, seems to escape him. He seems incapable of understanding that, long before the concept of civil government was established, communities would indeed agree to "tax" themselves, by requiring that their members make contributions to the well-being of the community, for example by hunting, by making things, or by otherwise contributing to the needs of the group. When my Scout troop goes camping, the Scouts "tax" each other so that the individual patrols, and the troop as a whole, can have a successful camping trip. You can also think of it as a fee-for-service arrangement: we pay taxes to a government of our choosing, and in return the government provides services which we cannot efficiently provide on our own.

Mr. Eastman, in reply to a challenge of mine asking him to explain why he asked his original question, replies "ecause, Mr. Pottapaug, I wanted to see how many of the Q-crew would attempt to give a positive answer to a question that can only logically be answered in the negative. And because I wanted to see what defective logic would be used in an attempt to support that positive answer." In other words: "because my mind is made up on this issue, and because I am going to label any logic which doesn't fit in with my own as "defective".

Thank you, Mr. Eastman, for proving me right. All along, it was evident that you had a hidden reason for asking your question; and as I suspected, your premise behind that question was enunciated so that you could accept or discard our responses based on your own biases -- which is what I meant by "structuring your posts". Had you started out by saying something like "can a person grant, to a government, the power of taxation if he does not possess the power of taxation himself?", we might have started this discussion off on a logical, intelligent note; but instead you have chosen to try to baffle us with copious bafflegab [note to Mr. Eastman: here's another potshot].

Do us a favor, Mr. Eastman. Unless you can show us, in short, succinct paragraphs, that there is no legal mechanism by which "the people" cannot choose to set up a civil government over themselves, and then pay for that government by taxing themselves (collectively), don't bother responding.

[LPC]

More importantly, he expects everybody else to buy into his twaddle and rot, and sadly, there will be a few like minded individuals who want to do whatever they want, whenever they want - rules, regulations, laws, societal mores, ethics, and morality be damned.

Morality be damned?

CaptainKickback, If the law says shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens, will you do it?

This question goes right to the heart of YOUR morality.

Someone needs some help with reading comprehension.

[LPC]

Please direct your attention to the highlighted words: "We the people ... do ordain and establish this Constitution."

Who made this law? The People.

Your assertion that the power to enact laws is not possessed by the collective group of individuals is refuted by the words of the Constitution.

In true troll-fashion, Eastman has just refuted is own thesis.

[.]

QED

[notorial dissent]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only person who gave up trying to read this? Even "casually?"

The poster must be desperate to drive traffic to his site.

What would have been the point, it was pages and pages and pages of mind numbing, and more importantly, pointless drivel.

Short of a politician, I have seldom seen anyone waste so much space while saying so little.

[Prof]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only person who gave up trying to read this? Even "casually?"

No, you're not alone. I scrolled through and decided that someone else was going to have to wade through all that crap.

And notice that all of it was posted within about 30 minutes. Which suggests to me that he works for days or weeks offline, generating volumes of drivel, and then pastes it all online at once.

It's not so much a round in a conversation or debate as it is a fusillade.

What they BOTH said.

[Paul]

I only read where he "responded" to my post, where I expressed the contract theory of government, in which everyone surrenders some rights in exchange for having their rights protected, and told Eastman that if he didn't want to pay for the benefits, he could forgo the benefits. He responded that he never accepted or wanted any benefits. But earlier, when I explained why a system in which your rights are only those you can protect yourself, he had written:

What if the property I own, that the aggressor wants to take, is my life?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

So he does want the benefits. He just doesn't want to pay for them.

[The Observer]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only person who gave up trying to read this? Even "casually?"

No, you're not alone. I scrolled through and decided that someone else was going to have to wade through all that crap.

And notice that all of it was posted within about 30 minutes. Which suggests to me that he works for days or weeks offline, generating volumes of drivel, and then pastes it all online at once.

It's not so much a round in a conversation or debate as it is a fusillade.

What they BOTH said.

The whole point of Eastman's posting here is two-fold:

(1) Because he is cutting and pasting this stuff back to his under-visited site, he is hoping to drive up the traffic.

(2) He is hoping that at some point, we will give up responding to his nonsense, and then he will go back to his site and proclaim "victory."

Please direct your attention to the highlighted words: "We the people ... do ordain and establish this Constitution."

Who made this law? The People.

Your assertion that the power to enact laws is not possessed by the collective group of individuals is refuted by the words of the Constitution.

In true troll-fashion, Eastman has just refuted is own thesis.

We should keep posting this example as a response to any post of Eastman's. Let's see when he decides to stop cutting and pasting this excellent example of him contradicting himself to his own site.

[The Observer]

So he does want the benefits. He just doesn't want to pay for them.

Like every other tax protester. Nothing surprising there.

[Lambkin]

Somebody please tell me I'm not the only person who gave up trying to read this? Even "casually?"

Summary: perseverating pointless pomposity in praise of his own perspicacity (apologies to Famspear).

Imagine this fellow at a dinner party, holding forth.

[wserra]

He'd soon be alone. And not because no one could answer, but rather because no one thought it worth the effort. When he later bragged about his unmatchable verbal prowess, the only people who bought it were those too dumb to distinguish profundity from verbosity.

[notorial dissent]

There is a distinct and serious difference between verbosity, and the chronic verbal diarrhea from which Eastman suffers, and inflicts on the unsuspecting. I know a great many verbose people who can actually be entertaining and informative and actually know what they are talking about, Eastman is non of those. He has wasted more than enough of my time and is no longer of any interest to me since I am not interested in reading self serving, poorly elucidated, twaddle.