TP or TS, who cares (a Tax Agnostic's view)

[ShadesOfKnight]

Well, after a series of short skirmishes here (where I'm called a TP) and other forums (where I'm called a government shill), I find myself realizing that whether you're a TP ("Tax Protestor") or TS ("Tax Supporter"), I seem to have found the answers I'm looking for in between the two.

It seems to me that it's very much like the debate between the Atheists and the Fundamentalists... And in the end, just as pointless a debate. In the end, the "truth" is something that neither argument actually answers all the questions to and neither "side" is able to really change. Like the religious argument, neither "side" is able to know or change the mind of "god."

Assume for a moment that the "TPs" are 100% accurate.. there's no law, the 16th is not ratified, et cetera, ad nauseam. So what? In the end, the fellows with the guns decide what the laws are. It is unfortunate, but Heinlein was right: Force is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.

Now, for the flip side, assume that the "TSs" are 100% accurate... it's all bullshit, it's all nonsense, the law is clear and simple as written, and so on. So what? Same end result. The fellows with the guns decide what the rules are and do so with a great deal of flexibility and leeway as to the application.

In a fraction of a second, the understanding of any of us can be turned around and declared "frivolous" and have no merit at all by the enforcers or the judiciary.

In the end, neither side is really "right," in that it really doesn't matter what their opinions are... it only matters what those in charge say is right.

[wserra]

In the end, the fellows with the guns decide what the laws are.

Wrong. In the end, the fellows with the black robes decide what the laws are.

Your version is simply the rationalization of someone who doesn't like what the fellows in the black robes have to say.

[Demosthenes]

The fellows with guns yield to the fellows in black robes. The fellows in black robes are appointed by the fellow in the White House and confirmed by the fellows in the Senate. The fellows in the White House and Senate are put there by the fellows in the voting booths.

[Imalawman]

In the end, neither side is really "right," in that it really doesn't matter what their opinions are... it only matters what those in charge say is right.

That is copping out. Our point here is that there is a reason why the world works the way it does - logic. There is no way any significant group of rational people would believe anything a TP puts forth. It makes no sense. In another thread, Disilloosianed aptly described what its like dealing with a TP:

It's not as if they look out the window onto a lovely spring day and say "The sky is orange." It's more like they look out the window onto a lovely spring day and say "The sky is a water buffalo." And there's just not much you can do with that.

The reason for continuing to post on this forum is to defend logical reasoning and correct statements of the law. Also, this forum has kept a few people drinking the kool-aid and losing everything they own.

You see, the stakes can be really high if you build your life around lunacy. Most TPs who employ TP tactics lose their home, marriage, children (many lose visitation rights, just ask the sooeys), and of course every penny they ever earned.

So when you say the debate doesn't matter, I say, "No, it matters very much". It’s important to demonstrate that the US is not run by a violent dictatorship with meaningless laws. The law does make sense and the law is logical. (for the most part) The TP/TS debate, as you put it, is not sophistry between two intellectual camps. It’s a vigorous debate between defending logic and reason and protecting those who are gullible from greedy con artists. In the end, TP gurus don't want an intellectual debate; they want to sell more book, tapes and speaking engagements to proffer their theories. Your attempt to elevate TP to an equally valid theory further shows your true colors as a tax protestor.

[ShadesOfKnight]

In the end, the fellows with the guns decide what the laws are.

Wrong. In the end, the fellows with the black robes decide what the laws are.

Your version is simply the rationalization of someone who doesn't like what the fellows in the black robes have to say.

Yeah. And there's always a fellow in robes on the street with the fellows with the guns, granting interpretations on the spot.

Your interpretation doesn't stand up to logical examination, wserra.

What I like is irrelevant, and in fact you have little (if any) idea what I like or don't like... But if it makes you feel better to make such pronouncements, perhaps you should have an act on stage in Vegas, reading people's minds. I hear Mr. Edwards needs an apprentice for Crossing Over...

[ShadesOfKnight]

The fellows with guns yield to the fellows in black robes. The fellows in black robes are appointed by the fellow in the White House and confirmed by the fellows in the Senate. The fellows in the White House and Senate are put there by the fellows in the voting booths.

The fellows with guns yield to the fellows in black robes... sometimes... and always after the fact. However, on multiple occasions, the fellows in black robes end up defending the fellows with guns.

The fellows in black robes are not all appointed by the White House.

The fellows in black robes who are appointed by the White House are not always confirmed by the Senate.

And finally, "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

Your estimation is, in my opinion, overly full of faith.

[Demosthenes]

Yeah. And there's always a fellow in robes on the street with the fellows with the guns, granting interpretations on the spot.

Utter BS, of course. In the 145 year history of the Internal Revenue Service, no gun carrying agent has ever shot anyone, ever, in the collection of taxes.

Save your hyperbole for your tax cheat friends. They eat such nonsense like chocolate pie.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Yeah. And there's always a fellow in robes on the street with the fellows with the guns, granting interpretations on the spot.

Utter BS, of course. In the 145 year history of the Internal Revenue Service, no gun carrying agent has ever shot anyone, ever, in the collection of taxes.

Never? Are you forgetting the suicides and accidental shootings? Also, what of the IRS raids that are performed by other parties (for instance, the Sherrif's department) and result in shooting? Do those figure into your thinking?

[natty]

In the end, neither side is really "right," in that it really doesn't matter what their opinions are... it only matters what those in charge say is right.

If you really believed that, you would be calling for a revolution. But tyranny can only survive when opinion is suppressed. That is not the case.

Some people are just more opinionated than educated.

[ShadesOfKnight]

In the end, neither side is really "right," in that it really doesn't matter what their opinions are... it only matters what those in charge say is right.

That is copping out. Our point here is that there is a reason why the world works the way it does - logic.

For once, we agree. We simply disagree on the basic point of the logic, it seems.

You see, the stakes can be really high if you build your life around lunacy.

The stakes are high, no matter what you build your life around.

So when you say the debate doesn't matter, I say, "No, it matters very much". It’s important to demonstrate that the US is not run by a violent dictatorship with meaningless laws.

If you really believe that, I think you may not have been paying attention lately. There are a lot of dictatorial acts, and downright illegal ones, that have been taken by the current (and past) administration(s). To say that we're a nation of laws and not a sort of dictatorship is to ignore this unfortunate fact.

The law does make sense and the law is logical.

In some cases, yes. In others, not so much. And in still others, it makes no sense at all.

The TP/TS debate, as you put it, is not sophistry between two intellectual camps. It’s a vigorous debate between defending logic and reason and protecting those who are gullible from greedy con artists.

And that is, almost word for word, what some Atheists say about the Atheist-Religion argument... thank you for illustrating my point.

In the end, TP gurus don't want an intellectual debate; they want to sell more book, tapes and speaking engagements to proffer their theories. Your attempt to elevate TP to an equally valid theory further shows your true colors as a tax protestor.

Funny. You call me a "tax protestor." The "TPs" call me a "government shill." And neither of you are right. And yet, both of you claim to stand solely on logic. An interesting picture emerges.

[ShadesOfKnight]

In the end, neither side is really "right," in that it really doesn't matter what their opinions are... it only matters what those in charge say is right.

If you really believed that, you would be calling for a revolution. But tyranny can only survive when opinion is suppressed. That is not the case.

Some people are just more opinionated than educated.

Tyranny doesn't survive only where opinion is suppressed. Total suppression incites rebellion. The trick that tyrants have to learn is how to give just enough "freedom;" to provide just enough opiate for the masses to remain calm. Whether that opiate be religion, American Idol, or the appearance of "freedom" doesn't really matter.

There are none so enslaved as those who think that they are free, it has been said...

[grixit]

Now, for the flip side, assume that the "TSs" are 100% accurate... it's all bullshit, it's all nonsense, the law is clear and simple as written, and so on. So what? Same end result. The fellows with the guns decide what the rules are and do so with a great deal of flexibility and leeway as to the application.

Please name a law that isn't ultimately enforced with guns.

In a fraction of a second, the understanding of any of us can be turned around and declared "frivolous" and have no merit at all by the enforcers or the judiciary.

No, only those who make frivolous arguments. There's a list of them so you'll know ahead of time what not to do.

In the end, neither side is really "right," in that it really doesn't matter what their opinions are... it only matters what those in charge say is right.

The voters are in charge. So far, their consensus is that they don't like the current income tax but accept it as the least objectionable alternative. If you feel differently, their are lobbying organizations that can use more volunteers.

[wserra]

Please name a law that isn't ultimately enforced with guns.

Gravity.

(It may be enforced with bombs, though.)

[Demosthenes]

Never? Are you forgetting the suicides and accidental shootings? Also, what of the IRS raids that are performed by other parties (for instance, the Sherrif's department) and result in shooting? Do those figure into your thinking?

You think IRS employee commit suicide by shooting themselves while collecting taxes?

Sheriffs are not IRS employees.

No accidental shootings, and no intentional shootings have ever been done by an IRS employee in the collection of taxes.

[Quixote]

It seems to me that it's very much like the debate between the Atheists and the Fundamentalists... And in the end, just as pointless a debate.

Yeah, just like the debate between chemists and alchemists. Sure, the alchemists have been working for 1,000 years without success, but that's just because they haven't found the right magic words. But success is right around the corner.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Unless it involves voters too old, slow, stupid or weak to operate a simple voting machine. And given that votes can be recounted, often with outside observation, what's the pont of diddling an election?

Two words: Florida and Ohio.

Neither of those states had a reliable recount in '00 or in '04. Further, electronic voting machines have a history of provable vulnerability.

Why bother? Because you might actually get away with it. Same reason some folk bother lying a nation into a war.

[Demosthenes]

The fellows in black robes are not all appointed by the White House.

The ones who decide on federal income tax issues are.

The fellows in black robes who are appointed by the White House are not always confirmed by the Senate.

The ones who decide on federal income tax issues are.

And finally, "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

Ah yes. It's all a huge conspiracy who becomes elected. This in a town (DC) where if two people share a secret, one is going to sign a lucrative deal to write a tell all book.

Your estimation is, in my opinion, overly full of faith

Nope. Mine is based on reality, not a bunch of myths sold by gurus on the internet, or lies told in a phony documentary such as AFTF.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Ah yes. It's all a huge conspiracy who becomes elected. This in a town (DC) where if two people share a secret, one is going to sign a lucrative deal to write a tell all book.

Your estimation is, in my opinion, overly full of faith

Nope. Mine is based on reality, not a bunch of myths sold by gurus on the internet, or lies told in a phony documentary such as AFTF.

Interesting how you can claim such omniscient ability and hold claim on what is and is not "reality." Perhaps you ought to Copyright it; you'd make millions in court suing folk who use it without your permission. Furthermore, don't be so quick to dismiss something just because it's on the internet... after all, look where you are; Glass houses and all. You might not be "selling" anything... but you're still just another voice on the internet and just as easily dismissed if we take that path.

Seriously though. Is it so hard to think that there is something wrong with believing that the voters decide anything (especially taxes) in a nation that is led by a President whose first term was decided by nine Justices instead of the general public... whose second term was shadowed by at least one state being able to show vote fraud... who went to war without the Constitutionally-required declaration of war... who refers to the voters as a "focus group"... and who likes being known as "the decider?"

Or is all of that just another conspiracy theory to be dismissed out of hand without any serious examination?

Vote for who you like; it's your "right," as long as you don't mind being abused equally by both parties.

[Disilloosianed]

ShadesofKnight wrote:

Vote for who you like; it's your "right," as long as you don't mind being abused equally by both parties.

Now, I do agree with that. However, that's the system in which we live. You are allowed to engage in civil disobedience if you do not like the rules, but you aren't allowed to complain if you get punished for the "disobedience" part. Maybe, if enough people see you and your plight, they will vote differently or "rise up" or something.

In other words, don't pay taxes at all if you don't want to, but under formal interpretations of the law by the people who are charged by our system of government with interpreting it, that path is very likely to land you in jail. There are many things that those of us with little influence or money can't change. You can not like it, but unless you intend to start (and win, be sure to win) a revolution, you might as well abide by it. As my momma often said, "Life isn't fair."

[Duke2Earl]

I am not a fan of the current President, but if elections are so damn meaningless, please explain why the President is currently having such a hard time with the Congress.