Rehash of TP theories (split from "False Returns")

[Famspear]

Good point by Agent Observer. SteveSy wrote:

Unfortunately not many have respect for the law unless of course its a law they find desirable.

But, of course, SteveSy has also written:

Oh, and I could really couldn't care less what a [sic] some federal judge says who is appointed by and paid by the very people trying to usurp the constitution. [ . . . ] Do I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it's my right.

Steve, deciding for yourself "what the law is" is indeed fairly close to being the functional equivalent of deciding which laws you personally find desirable.

Denigrating Federal judges who issue rulings with which you disagree as being "appointed by and paid by the very people trying to usurp the constitution" is childish, transparently psychopathological rationalization.

Having "respect for the law" means, in the case of Acts of Congress, having the maturity to accept as authoritative statements of law what "some federal judge" rules the law to be, in a court of law, in an actual case. "Deciding the law for yourself" is not a LEGAL right that you or I or anyone else has under the U.S. legal system, and "deciding the law for yourself" is inconsistent with respect for the rule of law.

But, I digress.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Having "respect for the law" means, in the case of Acts of Congress, having the maturity to accept as authoritative statements of law what "some federal judge" rules the law to be, in a court of law, in an actual case. "Deciding the law for yourself" is not a LEGAL right that you or I or anyone else has under the U.S. legal system, and "deciding the law for yourself" is inconsistent with respect for the rule of law.

But, I digress.

And you've wasted your breath. However, I affirm everything you've said.

[SteveSy]

Good point by Agent Observer. SteveSy wrote:

Unfortunately not many have respect for the law unless of course its a law they find desirable.

But, of course, SteveSy has also written:

Oh, and I could really couldn't care less what a [sic] some federal judge says who is appointed by and paid by the very people trying to usurp the constitution. [ . . . ] Do I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it's my right.

Of course all the context is ripped from that quote....

Everyone has the right to decide what the law says, being intentionally dishonest about what it says is that person's loss. However, if you read the law and it clearly does not say what someone, anyone, is telling you it says then you're an idiot for accepting it says that. But its obvious they can still punish you regardless of what it really says. Might doesn't make right except for members of the herd...such as Famspear. Or as BF said via Poor Richard "Force shites on the back of reason."

Madison – Federalist #62
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?

In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy. But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

Just my reply to Famspear....herd member especial...

[Famspear]

Dear Steve:

A herd member?

That's it? That's your answer?

No, Steve, a "herd member" in the connotative sense is "one who follows the herd" rather than thinking for himself.

The subject here is primarily Federal income tax law. In this sense of "following the herd," I do not follow the herd. Indeed, on the topic of Federal tax law, I do not "follow" other people.

I reason things out for myself. But my ability to reason in legal matters came about not primarily from reading textbooks written by "experts" or by listening to lectures by "experts". My knowledge of law and how to perform legal reasoning came primarily from law school -- an experience that involved relatively little in the way of "textbooks" as you undoubtedly experienced them in your grade school, and relatively little in the way of "lectures" as you may have experienced them in grade school or college.

Law school (or at least, the one I attended) is what I call "self-teaching". It is to a large degree "directed" self-teaching, but it is self-teaching nonetheless.

And after law school, as I have continued to learn, my learning process has continued to be primarily a self-teaching one. I rarely read legal encylopedias or treatises or textbooks. Instead, I study the actual verbatim texts of constitutions, statutes, regs, court decisions, and so on. I study primarily PRIMARY authority.

Yet, I and 99.9% of all legal analysts come to the same conclusions about the nature of the Federal income tax. Why is that Steve? Is it because all these folks are "following the herd"?

No.

The reason that 99.9% of all tax lawyers agree with me and disagree with you about what the tax law is is that we are right and you are wrong. Law itself is a body of knowledge that is objective. It exists outside of me and you. It is knowable. To paraphrase what Dan Evans has said, law is not just something nebulous that each person can decide for himself. Law is something outside of any one individual, something that can actually be learned. And law is not merely a bunch of rules to be memorized; it is also a process.

The difference between you and me on this point is that in "reasoning" things out, I and other observers here have noticed that you use subjective standards -- your own "inner" standards -- in making decisions about tax law, whereas I and others use objective standards.

You, Steve, cannot change the nature of the physical world by "deciding for yourself" or "believing" that the laws of physics as described by Einstein, et al., are "wrong". Neither can you change the nature of the law by "deciding for yourself" that those with whom you disagree are simply "following the herd."

Also, Steve, you cannot discover truth -- not the kind of truth we are talking about here -- by using your emotions or your feelings. Emotions do have their place (and indeed the ability to understand and stir the emotion of other people has its place in certain areas of the law!), but my impression from dealing with you over the months is that you are using your emotions in the wrong places.

Ask yourself why you keep coming back to Quatloos for more and more punishment.

Since I'm not qualified as a psychologist, there'll be no charge for this psychoanalysis.

[SteveSy]

Dear Steve:

A herd member?

That's it? That's your answer?

No, Steve, a "herd member" in the connotative sense is "one who follows the herd" rather than thinking for himself.

Bravo!

Which fits you to a tee.

Law school (or at least, the one I attended) is what I call "self-teaching". It is to a large degree "directed" self-teaching, but it is self-teaching nonetheless.

Right....

And after law school, as I have continued to learn, my learning process has continued to be primarily a self-teaching one. I rarely read legal encylopedias or treatises or textbooks. Instead, I study the actual verbatim texts of constitutions, statutes, regs, court decisions, and so on. I study primarily PRIMARY authority.

Translation...."I read what someone else said and I accepted it as my own. I'm now an expert at what someone's opinion was and will be. My opinion is and will be purely derived from theirs."

Yet, I and 99.9% of all legal analysts come to the same conclusions about the nature of the Federal income tax. Why is that Steve? Is it because all these folks are "following the herd"?

Yes

The reason that 99.9% of all tax lawyers agree with me and disagree with you about what the tax law is is that we are right and you are wrong. Law itself is a body of knowledge that is objective. It exists outside of me and you. It is knowable. To paraphrase what Dan Evans has said, law is not just something nebulous that each person can decide for himself. Law is something outside of any one individual, something that can actually be learned. And law is not merely a bunch of rules to be memorized; it is also a process.

A process that involves judges making an opinion of law and you accepting that as law even though the constitution clearly states only congress shall make the laws.

The difference between you and me on this point is that in "reasoning" things out, I and other observers here have noticed that you use subjective standards -- your own "inner" standards -- in making decisions about tax law, whereas I and others use objective standards.

No I do not. I base my beliefs purely on what I've read from history. The constitution is the exact same document it was when it was first created except those amendments which have been added. What you would have me believe is that a judge today knows more about what a clause means then everyone who was actually there. Take for instance the general welfare clause. No one, not anyone ever documented during that period remotely thought the clause allowed 90% of what the government does today.


You are not objective in the least. Your opinions are based on what someone else has said. You consider what the outcome may produce rather than trying to come to a correct answer. It is seen all the time on this board..."You just want all your money, you're greedy. The government would collapse. Times have changed, do you want to go back to the 1700's? The government would go broke." etc etc. Those types of responses are indications of not being objective and considering the outcome rather than the correct answer. This is also seen in the courts, judges make decisions not on what the law says or even the intention of the law but what would happen if they read the law a certain way. I attribute most of that to Holmes, one of the greatest egomaniacs to ever sit on the SC and almost single handily destroyed the intended purpose of the federal judiciary.

You, Steve, cannot change the nature of the physical world by "deciding for yourself" or "believing" that the laws of physics as described by Einstein, et al., are "wrong". Neither can you change the nature of the law by "deciding for yourself" that those with whom you disagree are simply "following the herd."

You are a mere follower of the herd. You slightly stray and consider that your independence but you still accept and adopt what the herd accepts and adopts at its core. It's impossible for you to maintain a belief that is contrary to the herd. Any disagreement is dumped once the herd adopts a position. You consider yourself knowledgeable and a step up because you are knowledgeable about what the heard leaders will or will not accept. Anyone not in agreement with the herd is considered "deciding the law for themselves". Only by accepting the herds position will you be considered intelligent, rational, logical or sane.

Ask yourself why you keep coming back to Quatloos for more and more punishment.

I'm not being punished....I rather enjoy exposing how transparent and unreasonable most of you are, not to mention how lacking in knowledge some of you are concerning the things you try and present yourselves as experts at.. I get quite a kick out of some of your responses. If you want to feel like you destroyed me and made me look bad that's fine by me.

Since I'm not qualified as a psychologist, there'll be no charge for this psychoanalysis.

It's all good....keep responding and making me laugh. Admittedly sometimes your really stupid responses aggravate me. I have a hard time understanding and accepting how people can want to fit in and be compliant so bad so as not to be identified as a heretic they'll screw themselves and their children.

I'm done discussing this topic on this thread...you want to continue....move it to ranting and raving and I'll be happy to respond.

[Paul]

stevesy wrote:

You are a mere follower of the herd. You slightly stray and consider that your independence but you still accept and adopt what the herd accepts and adopts at its core. It's impossible for you to maintain a belief that is contrary to the herd. Any disagreement is dumped once the herd adopts a position. You consider yourself knowledgeable and a step up because you are knowledgeable about what the heard leaders will or will not accept. Anyone not in agreement with the herd is considered "deciding the law for themselves". Only by accepting the herds position will you be considered intelligent, rational, logical or sane.

All this from a moron who insisted through several threads that there is something to the 861 argument, even though he couldn't tell us what it is and despite the numerous times the full texts of the statutes and regulations Larken uses to make his argument were quoted on those threads to show Larken's argument was full of it.

Stevesy, there are a number of people on this forum who make their living arguing, often successfully, that the IRS is wrong. When they ALL tell you that the idiots who adopt any theory that proves they don't owe income tax are wrong, it isn't because they're following the herd. At the level the tax protestors are dealing with the law, the answers are as simple and clear as 2 + 2 = 4.

[Prof]

Re criticisms of Stevesy:

Since Steviepoo believes that all lawyers, all judges, all politicians, all government workers, all laws passed by politicians, etc., etc., are corrupt or are interpreted only by a blind, herd mentality, or something, then he is by definition, an anarchist, or at least such an extreme libertarian that he leaves even Ron Paul in the dust.

Now, as far as I know, it is perfectly ok to be an anarchist, which is just a radical version of libertarianism, substituting the term "no government" for the term "limited government."

Anarchists theory, after all, regards all "organization" of government or government-like forces as inherently corrupt and inherently dictatorial.

There is nothing wrong with this approach and Steviepoo is generally pretty much consistent in his approach.

How his system would work, I do not know. By the way Steviepoo, while sometimes the consensus is wrong, I generally want to be treated by a physician who agrees with the general consensus that diseases are not caused by ill-humors or vapors or evil spirits. I also want to be represented by a lawyer who certainly understands and genenerally agrees with the consensus view on statutes, the power of judges, etc. I do not want to be treated by someone who believes that positively charged fruit juice will cure a staph infection, because he read it on the Internet, anymore than I want to be represented by someone who does not understand the controlling case law concerning taxation.

However, that's just me.

See if you can explain how your anarchist or very libertarian state /government would work. I'd be interested in how you think -- without a tax system, for example -- we could support say the sewage system (assume that where you live, septic systems are going to cause serious public health problems, which, as far ask I know, is true in much of the Houston area unless the field is very large -- say several acres). Assume that you remain consistent: No government can tax you for a sewage system and no private person will build one because the number of potential private subscribers (no government ) who will sign up is limited, because there is no penalty for polluting the groundwater, letting the sewage go into the bar ditch, etc. (no courts, remember, they're all corrupt), etc.

[SteveSy]

See if you can explain how your anarchist or very libertarian state /government would work. I'd be interested in how you think -- without a tax system, for example -- we could support say the sewage system (assume that where you live, septic systems are going to cause serious public health problems, which, as far ask I know, is true in much of the Houston area unless the field is very large -- say several acres).

I have never advocated for a system where no taxes are collected and I can't possibly see how you think I have advocated for such a thing after all my posts. I have said many times I support a VAT or similar.

I argue for equal treatment by the government, not the socialist type either of wealth distribution by using slick, intellectually dishonest phrases such as "as a percentage of income". I argue for strict adherence to the constitution as it was designed. If we believe, as a country, that the current constitution as it stands is not sufficient for modern times amend it don't reinterpret it. Why else would they provide for amending the constitution if this is not the way it was intended. Reinterpreting the constitution is just a method to dishonestly justify usurpation of it. There's a reason its so hard to amend the constitution, it contains the fundamental building blocks for all federal laws and actions which should be agreed upon by the greater majority of the country, not by a few elite judges sitting on some bench who was appointed for life or until he/she quits. They very well may be there long after the people decided the elected government, which appointed them, needed to be removed and new one put in its place.

Assume that you remain consistent: No government can tax you for a sewage system and no private person will build one because the number of potential private subscribers (no government ) who will sign up is limited, because there is no penalty for polluting the groundwater, letting the sewage go into the bar ditch, etc. (no courts, remember, they're all corrupt), etc.

I'm not Larken Rose and never pretended to take his position which is what you're describing. IMO he goes way to far....no society could survive in this world using his views. The federal government IMO should be about 1/10 to 1/50th of its current size. It doesn't need to be involved in ANY local matters whatsoever such as welfare. It should do what the constitution states, defend us from foreign occupation, negotiate treaties, control foreign goods and issues relating to interstate commerce (state to state commerce, not intrastate commerce whatsoever). All of the local matters should should be handled by the States and municipal governments. If a state is treating its people unfairly people will move and the better run states will do better forcing the crappy states to change their ways.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I argue for strict adherence to the constitution as it was designed. If we believe, as a country, that the current constitution as it stands is not sufficient for modern times amend it don't reinterpret it. Why else would they provide for amending the constitution if this is not the way it was intended. Reinterpreting the constitution is just a method to dishonestly justify usurpation of it. There's a reason its so hard to amend the constitution, it contains the fundamental building blocks for all federal laws and actions which should be agreed upon by the greater majority of the country, not by a few elite judges sitting on some bench who was appointed for life or until he/she quits. They very well may be there long after the people decided the current elected government, which appointed them, needed to be removed and new one put in its place.

Steve, I think the consensus here is that you argue for strict adherence to the constitution as interpreted by you, SteveSy, and that you also argue for a rejection of adherence to the constitution as interpreted by the courts (i.e., the "few elite judges") with whose decisions you disagree.

The vast majority of people understandably reject your view of how this should work. This vast majority you label as "the herd." People who disagree with your view of how the system should work are, in your mind, simply "following" the herd.

You have not seriously and intensively law and, apparently, you have not studied history seriously either. You dabble.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

I argue for strict adherence to the constitution as it was designed. If we believe, as a country, that the current constitution as it stands is not sufficient for modern times amend it don't reinterpret it. Why else would they provide for amending the constitution if this is not the way it was intended. Reinterpreting the constitution is just a method to dishonestly justify usurpation of it. There's a reason its so hard to amend the constitution, it contains the fundamental building blocks for all federal laws and actions which should be agreed upon by the greater majority of the country, not by a few elite judges sitting on some bench who was appointed for life or until he/she quits. They very well may be there long after the people decided the current elected government, which appointed them, needed to be removed and new one put in its place.

Steve, I think the consensus here is that you argue for strict adherence to the constitution as interpreted by you, SteveSy, and that you also argue for a rejection of adherence to the constitution as interpreted by the courts (i.e., the "few elite judges") with whose decisions you disagree.

Nope, pick up the federalist, anti-federalist papers, or the Elliot Debates and everything I stand for and argue against can be found in those documents. What you stand for can only be found in modern documents which again assume that they know more about what was intended than the very people who wrote the originals. No person with any intellectual honesty who has read those documents would or could conclude the current government is operating constitutionally as it was originally designed.

btw, the "consensus" here isn't mainstream....its more akin MoveOn.org or the Daily Kos. Most of you are ultra left wing fruit cakes. Of course admittedly I would be considered on the other side of the spectrum, an ultra conservative fruit cake. However, my position is solidly backed up by the original documents.

The vast majority of people understandably reject your view of how this should work. This vast majority you label as "the herd." People who disagree with your view of how the system should work are, in your mind, simply "following" the herd.

The vast majority of people get something from the government as you and your fellow herd members keep pointing out. Its no surprise that someone who receives or provides subsidies, kickbacks, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, government student loans, tax preparation, federal legal assistance, EIC, etc. etc. etc. would not want to make the government very limited. It's really no different than a crack dealer....get'em hooked and they'll do just about anything for you to not get cut off. You as one of the dealer's street corner men tell people "No one as forcing these people to buy it, they do it because they want it, I simply provide a service. I bet if you ask any of the people who buy it from me if they want me to go, they'll say no."

[Y]ou have not studied history seriously either. You dabble.

Coming from you that's absolutely hilarious....

[Paul]

Nope, pick up the federalist, anti-federalist papers, or the Elliot Debates and everything I stand for and argue against can be found in those documents.

As stevesy continues to argue that Brushaber was wrong . . .

Stevey, IF you are right and a tax on income from wages or from any other source is a direct tax, then the 16th Amendment clearly says congress can impose that tax without apportionment. So what's your constitutional issue?

[SteveSy]

Nope, pick up the federalist, anti-federalist papers, or the Elliot Debates and everything I stand for and argue against can be found in those documents.

As stevesy continues to argue that Brushaber was wrong . . .

Stevey, IF you are right and a tax on income from wages or from any other source is a direct tax, then the 16th Amendment clearly says congress can impose that tax without apportionment. So what's your constitutional issue?

I haven't even mentioned the 16th amendment.....are you lost Paul?

[Joey Smith]

The fallacy is that the intent of a generation long dead should govern us in the present age. It is the Constitution as amended and as interpreted that we follow now. If a majority of folks disagree, they are free to re-amend or appoint Administrations who will appoint judges who will interpret as they believe. But as we sit here today, there is no majority of people who believe that the Constitution is wrongly interpreted as it pertains to the income tax -- the small number of nuts pulling for Ron Paul notwithstanding -- and no judge or serious legal scholar believes that either.

It is stupid to contend that we must attempt to engage in a psychic channeling of the Founders to determine what they would do in an era that they could scarcely comprehend or understand, when many of them didn't believe in the first place that the Constitution would or should last more than a couple of generations. And there would be more than a few who would be astonished to find that negroes are no longer slaves and that women have been given the right to vote . . .

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Coming from you that's absolutely hilarious....

We're all finding some things here to be hilarious, and we're all laughing here at one time or another. The reasons for the laughter vary.

[Famspear]

Joey Smith wrote

It is stupid to contend that we must attempt to engage in a psychic channeling of the Founders to determine what they would do in an era that they could scarcely comprehend or understand [. . .]

I think that comes close to hitting the problem presented by SteveSy: Steve presumes that he is the psychic channel.

[LPC]

I haven't even mentioned the 16th amendment.....

Yes. There are in fact large portions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that are still very much unknown to you, but that we hope will eventually be revealed.

Meanwhile, what we call "real life" goes on oblivious to your ignorance.

[SteveSy]

The fallacy is that the intent of a generation long dead should govern us in the present age. It is the Constitution as amended and as interpreted that we follow now. If a majority of folks disagree, they are free to re-amend or appoint Administrations who will appoint judges who will interpret as they believe.

And that is exactly what the founders intended to prevent by making the constitution amendable. That's why we don't have a democracy and instead a republic with a constitution.

[Joey Smith]

Overlooks that nearly all the founders were still alive at the time that Marbury v. Madison was decided, that few complained and no action to rectify that decision was taken -- thus ratifying the notion that the Constitution is subject to interpretation by the courts.

But all of this esoteric discussion of the process overlooks the reality: Tax protestors are precisely mad because there is no popular groundswell to adopt their views. Yes, people may discuss the fair tax or the flat tax or whatever (I remember Steve Forbes campaigning on the basis of the flat tax many moons ago), but there are no people standing outside my supermarket holding clipboards to begin the process for any kind of constitutional change. So, instead of getting off their collective arses and doing something -- something that they doubtless realize the futility of doing because the masses have shown little inclination to go along with it -- they sit around and tell tall tales about the End of the Republic as they fantasized it, or, as you do, attempt to channel those who are so long dead that all but a few of their gravestones can even be located anymore.

When it comes to the constitutionality of the income tax: Nobody cares, at least in the sense that you desire them to care.

Deal with it.

[grixit]

See if you can explain how your anarchist or very libertarian state /government would work. I'd be interested in how you think -- without a tax system, for example -- we could support say the sewage system (assume that where you live, septic systems are going to cause serious public health problems, which, as far ask I know, is true in much of the Houston area unless the field is very large -- say several acres). Assume that you remain consistent: No government can tax you for a sewage system and no private person will build one because the number of potential private subscribers (no government ) who will sign up is limited, because there is no penalty for polluting the groundwater, letting the sewage go into the bar ditch, etc. (no courts, remember, they're all corrupt), etc.

Gardy-Loo!

[Judge Roy Bean]

...When it comes to the constitutionality of the income tax: Nobody cares, at least in the sense that you desire them to care.

Deal with it.

My sense out here in fly-over country is there are so many people who are either close to or are actual net non-payers that those who do pay the most (or protest the most) will never see a groundswell of shared outrage.

If you are seriously opposed to something and can't articulate a reason that engenders widespread agreement, you have to tune the message - sometimes to include out-and-out falsehoods. But even with a professionally made propaganda piece like A-FTF the "movement" fails the "so what?" test for too large a portion of the voting public.