Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

t7_DgSep-ns&NR=1&feature=fvwp


lets talk about the IRS and taxes, what about the treasury being privatize and not actually part of the american government.

Just remember, taxes are voluntary.

Would you want the Department of Treasury to behave more like the Federal Reserve? Or would you want the American people to have a more firmer control over it?

The government is our best friend.

I support tax evasion 100%.

I applaud people that hide their money in foreign banks and away from the corrupt hands of our government.

are we all joking or being sarcastic? i cant tell.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
are we all joking or being sarcastic? i cant tell.

I was being sarcastic (but as stupid as it sounds, taxes are considered to be voluntary).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was being sarcastic (but as stupid as it sounds, taxes are considered to be voluntary). i hear it is only optional/voluntary to fill out and mail ur tax info but it is not optional to have to pay it if audited.

but now i am really curious to find a law specifically stated that federal taxing is mandatory and also want to find another written law saying it is now legal to use ur social security number as mandatory identification number which from what i hear is illegal and was made clear it is not nor was it meant to be used in such a manner..

I'm not sure if KidRock was serious or joking. I assume slightly serious?



Anyway, I will obey the laws to the best of my ability.

I'll pay my taxes. I have a hard time getting things perfect on my taxes, but I try my best to do them correctly.

i wont lie if i was a millionaire i would have off shore accounts and find ways to not pay taxes.. i probably change citizenship to that of a Canadian, germany... i then would only come to the states to do a job as an outside contractor already paid prior to entering the country and performing the job.

like to see how that would work out..

http://www.gambling911.com/Wesley-Snipes.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure if KidRock was serious or joking. I assume slightly serious?



Anyway, I will obey the laws to the best of my ability.

I'll pay my taxes. I have a hard time getting things perfect on my taxes, but I try my best to do them correctly.

I just have an accountant do mine.

Blame it on WWII, where the government made this tax. It was a coolie-O-thingie, that was to be ended when the war did. but did it???

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
are we all joking or being sarcastic? i cant tell.

I was serious with my question up above.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i wont lie if i was a millionaire i would have off shore accounts and find ways to not pay taxes.. i probably change citizenship to that of a Canadian, germany... i then would only come to the states to do a job as an outside contractor already paid prior to entering the country and performing the job.

like to see how that would work out..

http://www.gambling911.com/Wesley-Snipes.jpg

If you're good at that, you can get a job on Wall Street and actually make billions for other like-minded people and then pocket some of the commissions. If you can do that and not pull off a Bernie Madoff, you're scot free.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i wont lie if i was a millionaire i would have off shore accounts and find ways to not pay taxes.. i probably change citizenship to that of a Canadian, germany... i then would only come to the states to do a job as an outside contractor already paid prior to entering the country and performing the job.

like to see how that would work out..

http://www.gambling911.com/Wesley-Snipes.jpg

nic cage as well

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure if KidRock was serious or joking. I assume slightly serious?



Anyway, I will obey the laws to the best of my ability.

I'll pay my taxes. I have a hard time getting things perfect on my taxes, but I try my best to do them correctly.

I am completely serious.

It's a citizens right in my eyes to do everything in their power to hide their money and avoid paying taxes that they feel are excessive.

I guess this number greatly differs from person to person.

But in my eyes if anyone is getting taxed more then a quarter (25%) of their entire income then they should do everything in their power to hide their money.

I even know of a guy here in Connecticut that specializes in pretty much either investing in things such as municipal bonds which are tax exempt...or even just hiding the money some how in offshore banks and corporations. He makes a living off lowering peoples taxes, it's awesome.

we you so inclined when your money was being used to bomb children? or is it only now that it is going to help the sick that you have problems with American tax laws?

Originally posted by inimalist
we you so inclined when your money was being used to bomb children? or is it only now that it is going to help the sick that you have problems with American tax laws?


I'm a bit confused on what you're trying to say there, but I assume it is something derisive towards KR.





And, yeah, if you put it that way (the first way)...paying my taxes sound bad.

lol, its just I don't remember this "real american patriots dont pay tax" stuff from KR when his taxes were being spent on wars, but now that they are spent on healthcare.....

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, its just I don't remember this "real american patriots dont pay tax" stuff from KR when his taxes were being spent on wars, but now that they are spent on healthcare.....


LOL

Okay.

I don't get the logic of "the best way to support America is to remove its income". Sure you can support what you see as the ideal of America (which I gather is to give absolute power to the wealthy on the argument that everything the government has ever done is "initation of violence" but by not paying taxes you take a step toward removing America as an actual country, so why would you ever say you were an American?

It's worthwhile to point out that the American public's ignorance towards the Federal Income Tax is a testament to how dumbed down and oblivious the American population really is.
First of all the Federal Income Tax is completely unconstitutional as it is a direct unapportioned tax. All direct taxes have to be apportioned to be legal, based on the Constitution

http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-income-tax

I9-Ih4H70MM
anyone want to start their militia? fight the man, i can show you guys how not to be a target that gets burned alive by an overpowering F.B.I.

1st after you beat the crap out of ATF make sure you dont let them leave but finish them off. 2nd dont wait around in the compound for the second attack wave of the F.B.I.

set up explosives around the property mixed with diesel fuel, fertilizer ,nails and ball bearings cans or pipes and spread it around.

second head out to the woods and spread about 5 miles from the compound cabin while maintaining a small unit inside the building in order to draw them in. p.s. make sure you have underground escape tunnels to escape CS and flames..

once ur outside from the 5 mile radius you can sneak up on the snipers and marshals who will have taken firing positions from a mile away.

another good idea is to make friends with certain middle eastern ppl to supply you with RPGs for the one or two tanks they will have acquired and about the three choppers that will be flying in the vicinity.

to keep from showing up in infra red you might want to have some good insulating material or try to stay in a close tight ball when the choppers approach in order to reduce ur heat signature and confuse them with you being an animal. a Ghillie suit would also help and most importantly try to live in a tight nit community who will help support you and hopefully get them to uprise against the man.


Make sure you and your followers and town ppl can get their political views across america and they have cameras video taping every illegal thing the FBI, ATF do from cussing and being unprofessional to threatening your life, career and family or freedom which they will do..

make sure you constantly ask for names and under what statue, law or constitutional right are they doing what they are doing...

not that I don't share your sentiments about Ruby Ridge, but there is an even better way to avoid what happened there:

Don't sell illegally modified firearms to neo-nazis

you know that the FBI set him up and tried to force him to be an informant by threatening his freedom and family right?

aside from that it should be illegal for law enforcement to coerce or have someone commit a crime when the law enforcement is the one pushing them and handing them the tools to do it.

at the least the agent should also be held accountable for conspiring and being an accessory to a crime...

also the sniper agent who shot the mother, his actions were considered unconstitutional by the court and he has yet to be held accountable for his actions. a few months or yr later the same man was again being reviewed during the wako incident and him killing a 17 yr old while he was cleaning a water silo.

Originally posted by inimalist
not that I don't share your sentiments about Ruby Ridge, but there is an even better way to avoid what happened there:

Don't sell illegally modified firearms to neo-nazis

But that is a restriction on their right to bear arms. If they can't buy guns how are they supposed to overthrow the government?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
you know that the FBI set him up and tried to force him to be an informant by threatening his freedom and family right?

aside from that it should be illegal for law enforcement to coerce or have someone commit a crime when the law enforcement is the one pushing them and handing them the tools to do it.

at the least the agent should also be held accountable for conspiring and being an accessory to a crime...

also the sniper agent who shot the mother, his actions were considered unconstitutional by the court and he has yet to be held accountable for his actions. a few months or yr later the same man was again being reviewed during the wako incident and him killing a 17 yr old while he was cleaning a water silo.

yup, not a real nice case at all, I totally am on your side on this, except:

he got tangled up in it in the first place because, after moving his family into the hills to avoid the government, he started bringing his children to a white supremacist compound (not that he shared their racist views, more their survivalist, anti-state and pro-gun views). He sold firearms to some members, but unfortunately, supremacist groups were at that time heavily infiltrated by the FBI. They hassled him, and to get them off his back, he sawed off some shotguns in his garage and the FBI proceeded with a military style ass ****ing.

All I'm saying, no matter what you believe, don't sell guns to neo-nazis. If for no other reason, the FBI does effectively infiltrate them very frequently.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that is a restriction on their right to bear arms. If they can't buy guns how are they supposed to overthrow the government?

Originally posted by inimalist
All I'm saying, no matter what you believe, don't sell guns to neo-nazis. If for no other reason, the FBI does effectively infiltrate them very frequently.

by the way rachel weaver is pretty... and i am sorry for her loss..

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that is a restriction on their right to bear arms. If they can't buy guns how are they supposed to overthrow the government?

that is the whole point of gun restriction it is done so it is less likely for it to happen since you will not be able to match the military firepower with non automatic wpns.

DhtcaRRngcw

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
that is the whole point of gun restriction it is done so it is less likely for it o happen since you will not be able to match the military firepower with non automatic wpns.

read Orwell's "The Atomic Bomb and You"

people haven't been able to stand against state power since the 50s

i know we as civilians cant stand up to the military fire power due to tanks and planes... but no american military is suppose to ever to be used against the american ppl which leaves law enforcement to deal with it.

i know that more then likely the military would be used but it would be the greatest shame and the moment that the US. is no longer the country of our fore fathers but would now be a totalitarian government led by the few. the sad part that any soldier/warrior to fire and kill a american civilian no longer deserves to wear the flag since he will have violated his oath and promise to protect his land and ppl..

but aside from the military we as a ppl should still be able to overpower ur standard law enforcement and besides if we as a ppl were to try to fight the government then we dont square off against their enforcers but systematically kill those in charge swiftly. it sends the message we the ppl are the government and you the few in power are not... its how most uprising and over turning governments work.

kZoh9zDn5_c

indeed

when has there been a civilian uprising in a modern Western state though?

like, there are valid arguments for gun ownership, defending oneself against the state is delusional. Actually, I think it does more to harm the idea of gun ownership, because it paints gun owners as being unstable people who are primarily interested in using their guns for force.

It is ideas like that which are the fundamental reason why some form of gun control is necessary. If the citizenry wasn't paranoid of everything, and wasn't encouraged by government and media to be paranoid of each other, maybe we could talk about this reasonably as adults. So long as second amendment supporters think it is reasonable to bring loaded, military grade, assault weapons to crowded political rallies, they are the quintessential reason for gun control.

It has nothing to do with government power (and it is delusional to think of yourself as a "Louis Riel" of the modern world), but rather to do with the fact that gun nuts harm more people than their guns could ever protect.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
but aside from the military we as a ppl should still be able to overpower ur standard law enforcement

This would create an arms race, first against the police and then against criminals. People would have to spend their whole lives learning to defend themselves and kill other people, I think most people will give up a few right in order to not be forced to live in that environment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would create an arms race, first against the police and then against criminals. People would have to spend their whole lives learning to defend themselves and kill other people, I think most people will give up a few right in order to not be forced to live in that environment. you mean you havent spend your life learning how to fight and kill to defend your constitutional freedoms?



no loss of freedom is worth having a little bit of security.

Thomas Jefferson

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

Thomas Jefferson

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

Thomas Jefferson

I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.

i can go on and on with these quotes but you get my point. i am a military man, i am hard headed and have strong view on freedom and liberty and i will die and fight against some one who tries to take it away from me even if its from the police, F.B.I. or any government official and i have in the past fought against dirty cops and i would do it again... P.S. i was found not guilty and my charges were dismissed..

also i was asked if i wa not afraid of the cops not drawing their guns, i answered i was in full control of the sitaution and if they had reached for them i would have escalated into deadly force.


usaflag

lol

you think the social circumstances of rifle ownership during a war of independance aren't different than assault weapon ownership in heavily urbanized environments in a modern nation state, versus a victorian imperial state?

not to mention, Jefferson would have believed that the constitution was not written in stone. The founding fathers didn't want it to become the religious text it is today.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

you think the social circumstances of rifle ownership during a war of independance aren't different than assault weapon ownership in heavily urbanized environments in a modern nation state, versus a victorian imperial state?

not to mention, Jefferson would have believed that the constitution was not written in stone. The founding fathers didn't want it to become the religious text it is today.

no, its the same thing to me different times different wpns but same tyrants.



not a religious text but our root beliefs and the foundation of our nations that were to change and grow but not completely be removed or trampled.

some of what he hated and fought against are still some of the same things that are still present today. he was against corporations then and i would hope he would be against it now especially if he were to find out how our government has bn out sourcing to the private sector(corporations) the same ppl who lobby for things that are against the greater good of the ppl.... the same ppl that try to get government officials to vote or side with them through the use of funds...

i would think jefferson would be just as angry now as he was then when it came to our government monitoring our purchases in books or any medium that allows for dissemination of information.

Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
hitler

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
no, its the same thing to me different times different wpns but same tyrants.

tactics that worked 200 years ago have been incorporated and castrated by the ruling elite, its like why an organized protest movement is incapable of making the changes it did in the 70s

spears against a tank man

not to mention, the social situations are different for many significant reasons. The existance of cities with millions of people living in extremely close proximity being one of the most important.

no, it is the masses apathetic nature that keeps us from affecting change, otherwise we as a ppl would have uproars with presidents violating federal and international laws, judges politicians being sent to jail. the problem is we dont care enough nor are the masses willing to sacrifice or endanger themselves for what is right and constitutional which is what allows american corporations to get away with mass murder in foreign soil, cover up or harassed lowly employees as if they were the government themselves.

Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.
Thomas Jefferson


One man with courage is a majority.
Thomas Jefferson

jefferson would not agree with the way you are interpreting his work /shrug

also, you are way more optimistic about the ability of single individuals than reality would warrant. People can be important, yet you really have not supported the idea that a modern citizen revolt could defeat the modern state in a military confrontation. Best you could hope for is destabalizing it to the point where a power vaccum occurs, and if you think the government is fascist now, wait until someone fills the vaccum

you actually think the military and those who have taken vows to defend the constitution and its ppl would be used and being willing to squash a civilian uprising?

also that is your opinion about how you think old jeffy would feel, i personally think he would have a tear roll down his cheek as his lip quivers at my patriotism.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson


The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson


The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
you actually think the military and those who have taken vows to defend the constitution and its ppl would be used and being willing to squash a civilian uprising?

ummm, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
also that is your opinion about how you think old jeffy would feel, i personally think he would have a tear roll down his cheek as his lip quivers at my patriotism.

you have taken what he tought was to be a document requiring constant revision and created a religious absolutism of it, the very type of absolute rule the Mythology of the American revolution says it was supposed to be against in the first place.

You have turned King George into a document

National guard arent real military different oaths...
but, i can see how ppl nowadays see it it as since they are now being sent overseas as part of a military war.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson


dont you question my patriotic resolve or i will bring democracy to ur @$$

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
National guard arent real military different oaths...
but, i can see how ppl nowadays see it it as since they are now being sent overseas as part of a military war.

actually, I'd say the distinction is meaningless

and in fact, I'd say a situation where the state is using its loyal police/intelligence/national guard forces against individual generals who are staging a "coup" to stop what they see as oppression is a state of total war, which, as Sym says, is MUCH less preferable to losing a couple of rights as it might be now.

as a common folk, not someone who is privy to carrying a gun and pointing it at people who I deem unjust, like some zealot of a document writen long before my birth, I am terrified of anyone who would use violence to change the world. Trust me, if you are taking up arms, you do NOT represent the interests of the citizens of a nation, especially in the modern nation state.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
dont you question my patriotic resolve or i will bring democracy to ur @$$

ha, ya, come occupy Canada, you can't even hold a city in the middle of a desert

i believe that change should be brought about with words,compassion and understanding but, once that fails it is up to ppl like me who made a vow to make sure those who are being oppressed and wont or cant fight back due to training or beliefs that we the nation's warriors and soldiers would do it for them no matter what emotional or spiritual cost it may be to us..whether they like it or not.

Albert Einstein:

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

Edmund Burke

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing

our goal wasnt to hold a desert city but to destabilize it..

there is a difference in doing nothing and not wanting to employ tactics that themselves are ineffective in modern society or would predictably lead to a situation of increased suffering for the majority of people.

damn you. you must be a pacifist, how i despise you..

violence always works..its bn solving all my life problems and even kept some from rearing its ugly little head.nono

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
damn you. you must be a pacifist, how i despise you..

no...

I believe in the instrumental use of violence.

Violence directed against a nation state will be instrumental in a few things:

a) creating a violent backlash against people resembling my identity (political/racial/etc)

b) create a state of panic among the other members of society (making them more manipulable by the powers that be )

c) if successful, creating a situation where revolutionary forces are now supposed to stop being revoilutionary and establish a government that:
i) isn't corrupt
ii) is no longer violent
iii) is stable in the instability it has created

and while not completely mutually exclusive, the human history of revolt has produced maybe 2 instances of this occuring (America, Cuba )

The state has a monopoly on violence right now. Not because it says so, but for legitimate material reasons. If you can describe a revolution that wont just cause backlash against anyone who is a political non-conformist, wont cause a lessening in the standard of living for anyone in society, wont deteriorate into a failed/corrupt/violent government in the end, and has a viable mandate for the ruling of a nation, please, describe it. I don't actually think it is possible.

see, not a pacifist, a strategist

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
violence always works..its bn solving all my life problems and even kept some from rearing its ugly little head.nono

if the problem i wanted to solve was "not being in a situation that might end my life" and the solution I wanted was "predictable escalations of violence against myself and others like me", I'd agree, violence works

i'll talk to you later i am going to watch "soldier" now..

word homie

guess which one is you in this scene...

8hGvQtumNAY

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
guess which one is you in this scene...

in that scene?

the closest thing would be one of the people sitting at the back, who doesn't get to open their mouth, who doesn't get a role or a say in what happens, but whose life and future is tied up in some identity politics of some people who have appointed to themselves the right to decide what my life is like and what my freedom is defined by

but in reality, I don't even get into the court room to see the discussions...

Had a friend who blew off paying their income tax. The IRS was not amused and my friend was equally unamused at the fines, income taxes and the lovely yearly audits that followed.

Best bet is to pay your taxes. Unless you're pulling in 6 figures (and I highly doubt anyone here is) it's not really that much people.

Originally posted by inimalist
we you so inclined when your money was being used to bomb children? or is it only now that it is going to help the sick that you have problems with American tax laws?

Why do you support paying for the healthcare of gang banging rapist drug dealers over killing terrorists?

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, I'd say the distinction is meaningless

and in fact, I'd say a situation where the state is using its loyal police/intelligence/national guard forces against individual generals who are staging a "coup" to stop what they see as oppression is a state of total war, which, as Sym says, is MUCH less preferable to losing a couple of rights as it might be now.

as a common folk, not someone who is privy to carrying a gun and pointing it at people who I deem unjust, like some zealot of a document writen long before my birth, I am terrified of anyone who would use violence to change the world. Trust me, if you are taking up arms, you do NOT represent the interests of the citizens of a nation, especially in the modern nation state.

I pretty much agree with everything else you've said in this thread.

Cept this.

I only partially agree.


You CAN represent the interests of the citizens of a nation by taking up arms in a modern nation. I'm sure you could think of several examples in the last 50 years.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You CAN represent the interests of the citizens of a nation by taking up arms in a modern nation. I'm sure you could think of several examples in the last 50 years.

please do

John Gotti

Originally posted by inimalist
please do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts

I'm not an expert on most of those, but can you describe a couple that you don't think fall under:

Originally posted by inimalist
Violence directed against a nation state will be instrumental in a few things:

a) creating a violent backlash against people resembling my identity (political/racial/etc)

b) create a state of panic among the other members of society (making them more manipulable by the powers that be )

c) if successful, creating a situation where revolutionary forces are now supposed to stop being revoilutionary and establish a government that:
i) isn't corrupt
ii) is no longer violent
iii) is stable in the instability it has created

and while not completely mutually exclusive, the human history of revolt has produced maybe 2 instances of this occuring (America, Cuba )

I might add Venezeuala to the list, but Chavez is by no means uncorrupt (his unwavering support for the FARC for instance, media repression etc, though Ven is very stable), and, though we might quibble about them being similar things, I'll grant most anti-colonial wars (though by no means did they produce effective states, India might be a great example of this).

The other thing would be most of the states listed there, especially when there are effective coups, are very weak states, or the coup was backed by a foreign power. They are not the modern nation state that me and wild shadow were talking of. I hardly see this as evidence that armed revolt would be successful in America, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan... you get the point.

Additionally, if we talk about who really represents the people, the best examples I would draw are from the Middle East. At the time of the American invasion of Iraq, support for Al Qaeda was widespread, but when they started their campaigns of terrible violence, public opinion shifted. There will always be the militias who say they represent the rights of the people they give themselves the power to speak for by taking up arms, that these militias normally increase the violence done against those people, at least to me (and I believe survey statistics would support this), means they don't represent the people.

Even in palestine, most palestinians want a peaceful 2 state solution, and they are occupied.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not an expert on most of those, but can you describe a couple that you don't think fall under:



I might add Venezeuala to the list, but Chavez is by no means uncorrupt (his unwavering support for the FARC for instance, media repression etc, though Ven is very stable), and, though we might quibble about them being similar things, I'll grant most anti-colonial wars (though by no means did they produce effective states, India might be a great example of this).

The other thing would be most of the states listed there, especially when there are effective coups, are very weak states, or the coup was backed by a foreign power. They are not the modern nation state that me and wild shadow were talking of. I hardly see this as evidence that armed revolt would be successful in America, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan... you get the point.

Additionally, if we talk about who really represents the people, the best examples I would draw are from the Middle East. At the time of the American invasion of Iraq, support for Al Qaeda was widespread, but when they started their campaigns of terrible violence, public opinion shifted. There will always be the militias who say they represent the rights of the people they give themselves the power to speak for by taking up arms, that these militias normally increase the violence done against those people, at least to me (and I believe survey statistics would support this), means they don't represent the people.

Even in palestine, most palestinians want a peaceful 2 state solution, and they are occupied.

You said, "Trust me, if you are taking up arms, you do NOT represent the interests of the citizens of a nation, especially in the modern nation state."

I simply stated that, "You CAN represent the interests of the citizens of a nation by taking up arms in a modern nation. I'm sure you could think of several examples in the last 50 years." My issue was only with your statement that was the exact opposite of that. Many of those coups were in the interest of the people and they were mostly violent actions. I provided lots of examples when you asked.

I don't need to comment on anything else as I agreed with pretty much everything else you said. I was just pointing out that, in modern history, LOTS of arms are taken up in the interests of the people, against the government, in lots of examples.


In fact, it looks like more and more arms are being taken up against governments, as time goes by. (But that could be a function of "modern history" gathering much more information, rather than coups becoming more frequent.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
You said, "Trust me, if you are taking up arms, you do NOT represent the interests of the citizens of a nation, especially in the modern nation state."

I simply stated that, "You CAN represent the interests of the citizens of a nation by taking up arms in a modern nation. I'm sure you could think of several examples in the last 50 years." My issue was only with your statement that was the exact opposite of that. Many of those coups were in the interest of the people and they were mostly violent actions. I provided lots of examples when you asked.

fair enough, I'll give you that

though, in many of those cases, the results were much worse for the common person than what had existed before

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't need to comment on anything else as I agreed with pretty much everything else you said. I was just pointing out that, in modern history, LOTS of arms are taken up in the interests of the people, against the government, in lots of examples.

In fact, it looks like more and more arms are being taken up against governments, as time goes by. (But that could be a function of "modern history" gathering much more information, rather than coups becoming more frequent.)

I think people may do so in the interests of the people, and it might be appropriate that someone would take arms in the interests of the people, my only problem is that looking at these frequent attempts, they result in power vaccums that are filled by the most brutal. Few revolutions or coups have a proper vision for the post-revolution, and it crumbles quickly.

But no, granted, I might have worded that in a poor way

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't get the logic of "the best way to support America is to remove its income". Sure you can support what you see as the ideal of America (which I gather is to give absolute power to the wealthy on the argument that everything the government has ever done is "initation of violence" but by not paying taxes you take a step toward removing America as an actual country, so why would you ever say you were an American?

That's a little extreme considering we could eliminate income taxes if the government operated at the levels we did in 1998 (Which is still too much, by my measure.)


Eliminating income taxes is NOT a step towards tearing down your government: it's s step in the right direction for our government.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, I'll give you that

though, in many of those cases, the results were much worse for the common person than what had existed before

I complely agree. I just wanted to point out, for good or bad, people take up arms "on behalf of their people" in the modern world.


Originally posted by inimalist
I think people may do so in the interests of the people, and it might be appropriate that someone would take arms in the interests of the people, my only problem is that looking at these frequent attempts, they result in power vaccums that are filled by the most brutal. Few revolutions or coups have a proper vision for the post-revolution, and it crumbles quickly.

But no, granted, I might have worded that in a poor way

To quote a wise philospher: Fair enough.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't get the logic of "the best way to support America is to remove its income". Sure you can support what you see as the ideal of America (which I gather is to give absolute power to the wealthy on the argument that everything the government has ever done is "initation of violence" but by not paying taxes you take a step toward removing America as an actual country, so why would you ever say you were an American?

You don't understand. See, patriotism means running the country as a fee for service, Kid rock is obviously an originalist going back to the articles of confederation, not that liberal f@ggot constitution. It's patriotic to for those who can afford to hide their tax money to do so and shift the entire tax burden onto the lower middle class and poor. The government should receive income solely through campaign donations and sales taxes which are inherently regressive. This will stimulate the economy and create jobs since those in the upper brackets will have more to spend and as social services are defunded into non-existence beyond what even non-profits can handle, jobs will be created along with even more wealth as the poor die out in famine and disease and the rich cash in on their pauper's life insurance policies. It's the perfect system.