Tax protesters and the concept of transference (psychology)

[Famspear]

From: Famspear
Wed May 23, 2007

Dear readers: The following commentary is adapted from something I wrote in another forum (and there's no copyright problem). It involves the concept of transference (a psychology term). Since I have zero expertise in psychology, I of course feel uniquely qualified to pontificate in this area (hey, if the tax protesters can do stuff like this, why can't I?). Here goes:

-- To some degree, many of us in our daily lives may from time to time engage in a mental process called "Transference," which one psychiatrist has defined as "the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood." (Leonard H. Kapelovitz, M.D., ''To Love and To Work/A Demonstration and Discussion of Psychotherapy'', p 66 (1987)). Part of the animus behind the ravings of some tax protesters is the burning, infantile urge to rebel against an Authority Figure (probably in many cases a parent). This includes an attempt to work out an unresolved situation or problem with an Authority Figure that developed in infancy or early childhood. The subject tries to work through the problem by inappropriately substituting a present-day person (or even an object or a concept) for the parent, and dealing with the Substitute as though it were the parent. This means that instead of consciously attacking "Mommie" or "Daddy" directly, the subject subconsciously substitutes a ''presumably'' safer and more distant target.

-- A possible psychological aspect of all this is the deep seated infantile feeling among some tax protesters that they have been lied to or misled or neglected or abused or otherwise treated unfairly by a parent or parental figure. The trust that should have been felt in the relationship with the parent was supplanted by fear, mistrust, etc. The resulting unhappy feeling sometimes manifests itself in what I call the "you can't fool me" syndrome -- a conspiratorial view of the world, perhaps bordering in a few cases on a paranoid view. This can be seen in the numerous references in tax protester literature to putatively malevolent authority figures -- judges, lawyers, CPAs, congressmen, bankers, etc. -- massive numbers of people since the advent of the modern U.S. income tax in 1913 who are supposedly engaged in a vast, selfish conspiracy to "hide the truth" about the Federal income tax.

-- "You can't fool me" is often the feeling, or emotion, or "affect" behind all this. Some tax protesters, like conspiracy theorists in general, work up a magnificent, elaborate, totally improbable "Weltanschauung." If the subject can create a fully elaborated explanation that connects the dots he or she feels in his or her mind should be connected, then he or she feels somehow "safer" or protected from the real or imagined predations that might come from the putatively malevolent "parent," and cannot be "fooled" by that parent's real or imagined actions.

-- The tax protester may feel he must deal with an early childhood conflict with his parent, but does so "safely" (or so he feels) by not confronting the parent directly. The protester, through this Transference, substitutes the Federal government or the central bank, or the tax law, etc., which becomes the Substitute Authority Figure. The protester subconsciously attempts to weaken the perceived "power" or even omnipotence of the parent by consciously attacking the validity, the legitimacy, of the Substitute Authority Figure. "There is no law that requires me to pay income tax" and so on.

-- In effect, the protester may be consciously trying to hold the Substitute Authority Figure accountable to the infantile standard (of fairness, etc.) set by the protester in his early, uncomfortable dealings with the parent. The protester consciously attempts to hold the Substitute Authority Figure accountable to the standards the protester subconsciously feels should have been used by his parents with him in early childhood by indirectly and unconsciously denying the legitimacy of the parent's authority and power -- through the device of directly and consciously denying the authority or righteousness or validity or power of the Substitute Authority Figure.

-- The protester is disturbed, however, when reality infuses the protester's attempt at the use of the Transference to resolve the infantile conflict. That is, the tax protester becomes upset when third parties point out massive amounts of authoritative information (i.e., the actual texts of the Constitution, statutes, regs, court decisions, etc.) that contradict the protester's view of the tax law (the Substitute Authority Figure) -- and the protester responds to this reality check very consciously and emotionally. This response is seated ultimately, however, not in the protester's present-day relationship to ''the tax law'' (the Substitute Authority Figure) but instead in the protester's past infantile relationship with the parent, which relationship is now being dealt with subconsciously and inappropriately. If the Substitute Authority Figure is shown to have validity and power, then in the subconscious mind of the protester the parent must also have been legitimate and powerful -- and the protester decompensates in a very emotional, angry, or otherwise uncomfortable way.

-- A further possible aspect of this in the process is that third parties who present authoritative information that contradicts a tax protester's view may, in the mind of the protester, be closely but subconsciously and inappropriately associated with the parent, and the anger, hurt or mistrust resulting from the infantile relationship with the parent may, through another Transference, be expressed by the tax protester toward the third party. Essentially, an attempt to provide data that contradicts the tax protester's view may be subconsciously but inappropriately viewed by the protester as an attempt by the third party to "take the side of the parent" -- or even ''be the parent'' -- in the dispute. One tax protester explicitly (but, in his own mind, subconsciously) apparently made this inappropriate connection on another web site in an exchange with me when he said, in response to something I wrote, that "because you say so on the (alleged) authority of your education is no different than: 'Because I'm the Mommy, that's why.'"

-- "[T]he patient misunderstands the present in terms of the past" (Kapelovitz, at p. 66, quoting Fenichel O, ''The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis'', p. 29 (1945)). "[ . . . ] [A]ll symptoms and neurotic patterns were originally solutions. Unfortunately, they were childhood solutions that have persisted into adulthood." Kapelovitz, p. 81.

OK, that ends the material, which has been, as I mentioned, adapted from something I wrote elsewhere. Obviously, I'm not saying that every tax protester is engaging in a transference as I described above.

I put this material here because (A) I hope it stimulates discussion, and (B) since I wrote it, I think it sounds like I actually know what I'm talking about (even though I have zero expertise in psychology). Yours, Famspear (23 May 2007).

[jkeeb]

So they're insane...Who knew?

[silversopp]

I think that could be a possibility, but I think it is more common that the TPs are unsuccessful in their lives and, like most people, want to blame someone other than themselves. I believe Demo mentioned that a very high percentage of TPs also filed for bankruptcy protection in the past. I'd be very curious to see how many TPs have also babbled in various get-rich-quick schemes (home-based businesses advertised on TV, MLM, etc).

Look at David as an example. Here we have an adult who has failed to achieve any marketable skills that would enable him to take care of his family. He looks around and sees most everyone else, even some complete idiots, able to make a living and raise a family. David doesn't want to blame himself, so he looks for some far out explanation. That got him thrown into jail, furthering his frustration. After a few years of this, he becomes a grown up adult putzing along a motor school, crafting lawsuits for inanimate objects that have some whacked out claim against religious figures.

I don't know John Bulten's story, but I'm sure it's really similiar, or about to get very similiar. I just hope that Bulten is smart enough to come to his senses before he goes into court suing Darth Vader and Julius Caesar for a skateboard, fifteen McDonald's french fries, and $67 million.

I hope fuzzrabbit has learned enough. All you have to do is look at the TPs and ask yourself "do I want to be like him?"

[grammarian44]

One aspect missing from your discussion of "transference" is its inevitability. In traditional Freudian therapy, the development of a transference neurosis--the patient's projection of the analyst into the role of parent--will always happen, regardless of the extent of the patient's neurosis. To Freud, transference resulted from any therapeutic interaction, and by analogy, from any human relationship.

Thus, if TPs are unconsciously re-enacting relationships with authority figures--most likely parents--in their interactions with various government authorities, then, if you are going to hang your explanatory hat on the concept of transference, they have no choice but to do so. For that matter, neither do the rest of us. Transference always results from human interaction.

That's why the concept of transference is pretty useless as an explanation of why some people are TPs and others are not. The fact of transference does nothing to explain specifically what in the earlier relationship causes specific TP attitudes or behavior--e.g., what makes them especially paranoid, what makes them unable to recognize the possibility of being wrong.

[Imalawman]

One aspect missing from your discussion of "transference" is its inevitability. In traditional Freudian therapy, the development of a transference neurosis--the patient's projection of the analyst into the role of parent--will always happen, regardless of the extent of the patient's neurosis. To Freud, transference resulted from any therapeutic interaction, and by analogy, from any human relationship.

Thus, if TPs are unconsciously re-enacting relationships with authority figures--most likely parents--in their interactions with various government authorities, then, if you are going to hang your explanatory hat on the concept of transference, they have no choice but to do so. For that matter, neither do the rest of us. Transference always results from human interaction.

That's why the concept of transference is pretty useless as an explanation of why some people are TPs and others are not. The fact of transference does nothing to explain specifically what in the earlier relationship causes specific TP attitudes or behavior--e.g., what makes them especially paranoid, what makes them unable to recognize the possibility of being wrong.

Good point. As I've said before, from personal experience, it would seem as though there is always a precipitating factor which causes quirkiness to turn into full on batsh-t craziness. (very scientific of me I know) I've also noticed a tendacy among religiously extreme people to be pulled into the TP mindset. I don't think its one factor, but many that lead to TP behavior. I think a psychological profile of an average TP would be a very interesting read.

[LPC]

I think that using the concept of "transference" as an explanation of tax denial behavior is both too simple and too complicated.

The explanation is too simple because you are trying to explain the behaviors of a lot of different people using only one cause: their relationships with their parents.

The explanation is also too complicated because it requires the establishment of a number of parallels between adult-child relationships and taxpayer-IRS relationships.

I've always believed that tax deniers are unhappy people who have decided that blaming the government and setting themselves up as superior to both the government and their fellow citizens will make them happier. They might be unhappy because of their relationships with their parents, or they might be unhappy for other reasons. The cause of the unhappiness doesn't make any difference.

[webhick]

Coupons...good idea, except...ponder this:

• The coupons were mailed to them using a government database of which they're not supposed to be a part of, and are therefore entitled to use the coupons because it serves as a "portion" of the restitution owed to them from the damage caused by being bought and sold like government cattle.
• Although they are not a citizen for taxable purposes, the government has accidentally misclassified them as such for the limited mailing of the coupons. Since their declaration of non-citizenship pre-dates the mailing of the coupon, it is safe for them to use the coupons because the government is explicitly giving them permission to use the coupons when they full well know that they are not taxable citizens.
• The coupon lacks an OMB number, so using it does not qualify as an affirmation of taxable status and does not enter them into a binding contract as an employee of the United States, the UNITED STATES or the uNiTeD sTaTeS.
• The coupon does not apply to 14th Amendment citizens, so non-14th Amendment citizens can confiscate the 14th Amendment's citizens coupons and use them.
• Because the coupon does not explicitly exclude services beyond a lap dance, the coupon enters the participants into an agreement that things will progress beyond a lap dance.
• The coupons were not accepted as positive law, and therefore lap dances in all their forms are illegal.
• Usage of the coupon is an affirmative affidavit to the person who accepts it that you are their babies' new daddy.
• Regardless of the coupon holder's behavior, upon acceptance the lap-dancer agrees to:
  • Never file a restraining order against the coupon holder
  • Never ask for a paternity test
  • Give a nooner three times a week to the coupon holder
  • Declare their sovereign status
• If you were really living off the grid, you'd do it yourself. The coupon is just another way for the government to make you dependent on it.

I ran out of ideas.

[Nikki]

You forgot that the coupons were issued to a CORPORATE NAME instead of to the White, Free-Born, Sovereign, State Citizen [but specifically not uSA citizen], and used the jurisdiction-inducing ZIP code.

[webhick]

Your scenario holds no interest for the straight female or gay male members of our audience.

Besides, they're all on heroin anyway.

[webhick]

Syntax Webhick, improperly used, i can make smart-a** comments like above.

You looked like you needed one handed to you

And its not all of them, there are a few smart ones that have the first dollar they made and probably make more than many of the posters here.

I long to be one of them. But, as an unfortunate turn of events, the men keep paying me to put my clothes back *on*. And it doesn't pay nearly as much. They stuff more money in the g-string of a hot chick than they do in the ugly chick's overcoat. Go figure.

If you were to get the coupon(s), you can sell them to someone who would enjoy them and you keep the money.

But then I would have to claim it as income

[gottago]

EVERYONE knows that they are all smart girls working their way through college........

[webhick]

EVERYONE knows that they are all smart girls working their way through college........

Not just college - medical or law school.

Just don't ask them to spell it

[LPC]

Want to make paying taxes a little less onerous - coupons for lap dances when you pay your taxes.

Yes, and by accepting the lap dance you have accepted a federal benefit, consenting to be both a "taxpayer" and a 14th Amendment "citizen."

Satan, get thee behind me.

[webhick]

You really can't make the TP pay taxes. They don't want to. No amount of poking, proding, or incentives are going to make them.

On the other hand, if you're talking about people who neglect filing because they owe or are afraid they owe...fear usually works pretty well.

How about a lottery? If you file your taxes (whether you owe or not, but you must be either paid up or current on your payment plan), you're entered into a lottery. One person from each state will receive a tax-free percentage of the total refunds from that state. I don't think I came up with this. I may have heard it somewhere.

[Famspear]

Date: Thurs May 24, 2007

Ooookaayyyyy, this seems to be working pretty well! My goal was to generate some discussion, and I guess that's what I got. We started with some psychological mumbo-jumbo about tax protesters, and we are now on the subject of lap dancing. I'm new here, and I like the trend! Thanks to all.

I have been crossing swords with tax protesters pretty intensively in another place for some time, and with the reading I've done, etc., I have to say I have the same impression about the demographics of tax protesters (generally white, male, etc.). They seem to be a miserable lot (not using "miserable" in the pejorative sense, but literally that they are unhappy people). One of my analogies involves Wile E. Coyote in the the old Warner Brothers' "Road Runner" cartoons. The coyote tried, over and over each week, to capture the road runner with one elaborate but ridiculous scheme after another. Each contraption fabricated or acquired by the coyote to capture the road runner failed miserably -- with the virtually inevitable result that the coyote was horribly (but, to the television viewer, hilariously) smashed against some rock or cliff or otherwise crushed, burned, etc. Despite always losing, the coyote never learned his lesson -- always coming back with yet another ridiculous contraption to defeat the road runner -- and always failing in the most miserable and silly way. Yours, Famspear

[Quixote]

Each contraption fabricated or acquired by the coyote to capture the road runner failed miserably -- with the virtually inevitable result that the coyote was horribly (but, to the television viewer, hilariously) smashed against some rock or cliff or otherwise crushed, burned, etc. Despite always losing, the coyote never learned his lesson -- always coming back with yet another ridiculous contraption to defeat the road runner -- and always failing in the most miserable and silly way.

I like that analogy. I always wondered why the coyote didn't just buy himself a chicken dinner with the money he paid to Acme. A number of tax deniers would be financially better off if they had just filed their returns and paid the tax. Others have refused to file valid returns that would have resulted in refunds.

[webhick]

And don't believe everything Webhick says.....I have heard she was once one of the biggest draws on the circuit and made a medium 6 figure income per year.

Was? WAS? Sweetheart, I ain't retired yet.

[webhick]

I like that analogy. I always wondered why the coyote didn't just buy himself a chicken dinner with the money he paid to Acme. A number of tax deniers would be financially better off if they had just filed their returns and paid the tax. Others have refused to file valid returns that would have resulted in refunds.

The coyote didn't buy himself a chicken dinner because one day he woke up and decided he didn't want to pay for his food anymore. So, he explored the USC looking for reasons why he didn't have to pay for food anymore. During the course of his research, he uncovered the master truth - that catching the road-runner would make the whole system crumble and force all food to be free. So really, it's about the principle, which as Elaine Brown points out, is expensive. And every time he fails to catch the road-runner but does not die in the process is a victory.

Their behavior is like the coyote but every time they open their mouths, they sound like Daffy Duck.

[The Observer]

I like that analogy. I always wondered why the coyote didn't just buy himself a chicken dinner with the money he paid to Acme.

I never saw any evidence in the Road Runner cartoons that a chicken dinner actually was available to buy. Certainly there were no facilities in the desert that prepared or marketed chicken dinners, and there were no chicken dinners available in the Acme catalog.

But this brings up an even more important point: Where did Wiley Coyote get the money to order anything from the Acme Catalog? I know that in the famous sheepdog vs. coyote cartoons, Wiley would be seen punching a timecard before starting and after quitting times, but I saw no evidence that he was being paid for chasing the Roadrunner.

[Dr. Caligari]

Coyote may have recovered some money from his lawsuit:
http://www.jamesfuqua.com/lawyers/jokes ... acme.shtml