What is Digg?54 Comments
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -2/+22According to the journal of the Continental Congress if the people have a grievance with the government they can withhold their tax money until it is resolved.
I think the website www.givemeliberty.org has something about it if I remember right.
In any event I applaud their effort and wish them well. - inactive, on 04/16/2008, -0/+17For those who lack the courage to oppose the government openly, might I suggest just cheating on your taxes. The tax code has become so ridiculous that it is now impossible for the government to enforce. The government never asks for receipts unless you get audited, which is rare. There are all kinds of deductions you can make and you don't even have to explain them. Deductions for mileage to work, parking at work, installing insulation in your house, solar panels in your house, replacing your furnace, student loans, spending anything on education, and there are probably several more that I can't even think of. In the rare instances in which you may get caught, all you would have to do is pay back the money with probably some very small fines. A risk very well worth it, to bring down the welfare/warfare state.
Wait, what's this, a bunch of guys in black, ninja pajamas, are breaking into my house. *****, I've said too much. - jimbabb, on 04/15/2008, -0/+16Every dollar is used for a war on somebody.
- JDenigma, on 04/15/2008, -6/+19I wonder how the leftists would reconcile this when they're always foaming at the mouth to arrest or have a shootout with a "right wing" tax "cheat" such as Ed and Elaine Brown? Hmmmm ;-)
- freedomwv, on 04/16/2008, -0/+12Yes they can. So the Fed and the IRS is very much in the wrong by taking the money without seeking a resolution to the grievance.
- JDenigma, on 04/15/2008, -1/+11I wish though that they would be more principled about it by refusing to pay all of their income taxes, not just a portion of it. Of course that would take great courage, particularly now with how much it is out in the public and known by the IRS already that they're not paying taxes so they're on the IRS's radar.
- freedomwv, on 04/16/2008, -0/+10Ever forget Ed Brown!
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9Also, growing your own food instead of buying it would prevent you from having to use Federal Reserve notes. Homesteading is an option I'm seriously looking into. Having a house that is completely self sustained. Grow your own food, provide your own heat and water, and produce your own electricity. This would prevent you from having to use Federal Reserve notes and relying on the government's public utilities.
Here's a good link on all that stuff: http://www.backwoodshome.com/ - avengingturnip, on 04/16/2008, -1/+10Of course you do. The only thing you really care about is government power.
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9Well I would suggest buying gold and silver but those are at all time highs. Buy ammo, a valuable commodity that can be traded in place of money in the future. Its difficult but its good to have some skills that you can barter directly for something else. Say if you can fix cars trade it for food instead of money.
- avengingturnip, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9I don't see a difference between the left and the neo-cons either. They are a plague on decent peoples everywhere.
- JDenigma, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8Great advice m2garand. Aside from the taxes though, what in the hell are we to do about the fact that they can just print this damn funny money.
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -3/+10I declare a truce between conservatives and liberals. Our common enemy is the neocons.
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7Which law are they violating for not paying income taxes? I believe there is a $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can find this law. The fact is there is no law. So tell me why should they go to jail when they are not breaking the law?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ... - avengingturnip, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6You must be confusing Americans with a free people.
- PongGod, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8"Good government"? That's an oxymoron. You might as well be talking about "good mafia".
- avengingturnip, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8I do pay my share. I give ten percent to charity every year. What do you do?
- RuffRidr, on 04/17/2008, -2/+7@zombies
How do you know what charity he gives his 10% to? You're right, it probably doesn't touch your world. I doubt he gives to ***** Anonymous. By the way, how exactly are you making a difference? Again, sitting on a messageboard all day and bitching doesn't really cut it. - TrevaLVF, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5United We Stand; Divided We Fall. (Please see the comment left by yellowcakewalk above mine).
Our common enemy are totalitarian imperialists. - JDenigma, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7I think chico babe has been put into place. Anyone paying attention to his history of comments will know what an obnoxious authoritarian he is.
- trickyt, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6I know right, why would they minimize the problem? They left out all the other wars, like the drug war, no child left behind war, homeland liberty assault war, etc... Like come on, we all know the department of homeland security is just a big slush fund for the Brownies
- RuffRidr, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7Well he does sit on this messageboard and bitch all day. That is almost like doing something, isn't it?
- Look4Truth, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6Ever wonder why they make "wars" on everything? Could it be for...I dunno...your money?
- avengingturnip, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7"the left opposed the right wing's illegal invasion of Iraq? And the left is opposed to the corporate welfare promoted by the right? And that the left is in favor of good government that is opposed by the right?" - Really? When did this happen?
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6I applaud these Americans for standing up to this tyranny. The fact is there is no law requiring us to pay income taxes in the first place. Watch this documentary for the details:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ... - JDenigma, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Eat ***** you commie boot licker. I hope Tony Soprano and his goon squad comes a knockin at your door and shakes you down for your required tribute for their services.
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -4/+7The left does not support the Constitution, freedom, liberty, individualism, or individual responsibility. The left prefers any form of collectivism it can get, socialism, more government power, disarming American citizens, etc. Whatever evils the left would hope to remove would only be replaced with worse evils if they have their way.
- JDenigma, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5Chico, crack open a truly honest, objective American history book some day why don't you? Maybe you should look at the history of what the left has been guilty of. Let's see how friendly the left really has been towards liberty and providing "good" government, if there is such a thing. Oh wait, you don't care about liberty. You're just a lackey for the left.
- TrevaLVF, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Where have you been all these years, ozymandias? In a coma?
- TrevaLVF, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Everyone has to start somewhere.
- katie212, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3You truly have been living in fantasyland of "OZ".
- zombies187, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1@JD
Anarchary is not proven to work. You speak with such conviction, that you sound unable to be reasoned with. I think my statements were more in line with opinion. I'm fine with people who believe the things stated here. Sorry to offend you, but I got asked a series of questions. And then got told to shut the the ***** up. It doesn't sound like you read what I wrote, and I've gotta wonder what the hell you are talking about. - JDenigma, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1"Also there is a good chance that from MY perspective, the charity he gave to might as well be ***** anonymous. Much as he would probably think that MY charities are worthless. Thats why we need to get together on things that are in the national interest, and let the market decide the other stuff."
That is your primary comment that I'm addressing. I think I clearly read what you were saying. You say you're fine with people who believe the things they stated here, but it sure doesn't sound like you're fine with letting them be free to make those choices on their own, which is an entirely different thing. You were essentially saying that there are some charitable causes that people need to be forced to come together and support through central planning. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but that's what it sounded like you were proposing. Your point of view was just rather patronizing of people and very authoritarian. Why should people be forced "to get together on things that are in the national interest", whatever the hell that means? That's what I have a problem with you saying. Who's to say also what constitutes "national interest"? That becomes arbitrary and is determined by whomever is in power at the moment. You were saying that in reference to charitable acts. Why should charitable acts be forced just because you think some of it can't be handled by the market? All charitable acts should be voluntary or else you're taking the morality out of the act by removing the choice involved and you are hurting the charity anyway by getting government involved which won't be as effective at helping people. Plus you yourself are being immoral at that point by using the threat of the guns of government to tell people what they must do lest they want to see the guns of government be used upon them. That is barbaric. Initiating force upon people who aren't threatening you, is violent and immoral.
You also brought up anarchy. Whoever said anything about anarchy here anyway? I never brought up anarchy. That's a whole other issue that is a tangent. I used to be a minarchist libertarian, but yes, I am now a converted anarcho-capitalist libertarian, which doesn't believe in having any coercive government around. However, I wasn't talking about anarchy here so let's not confuse the issue. We were merely talking about charity and not wanting government to be involved in charity does not necessarily mean you're an "anarchist". You can have a minarchist constitutionally limited government and still not have government involved in charity at all. Besides, that was never supposed to be a constitutional function of government anyway. If you want to talk about anarchy, fine. That's a different issue, but don't use that as a distraction here. No one said anything about anarchy until you just did there.
I also got a little upset because of how you were confronting people with how they need to be told what to do with their taxes or should be told what they need to do in the national interests for philanthropic acts. I didn't actually tell you to shut the ***** up, though granted I did use that f word in a different way by saying to leave people alone.
Supporting "national interest" is also a rather collectivist mindset. There should be no national interest or nationalism. - JDenigma, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I never said it didn't smartass ;-)
Suddenly now you're high and mighty in praising them where before you were smug in saying we need to be told what to do morally with our money. - TrevaLVF, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Yellowcakes, I'm a progressive. I have a combination of values, each one chosen selectively and after much consideration, rather than as a blind follower of a herd from any direction of the far-left -to- far-right socio-political perspective. That is, in part, why I am a progressive. As a progressive, I realize that we cannot make progress if we reduce any efforts for unity through communication and by seeking common factors to a petty bickering contest that is full of name-calling, bias, and stereotypical depictions of character, as is evident in most responses to your call for unity.
Obviously, we have our work cut out for us, because some people aren't interested in taking the steps which are necessary for this unity we so desperately need today. Nevertheless, I think that you and I have enough in common with each other to work toward our shared goals. I pointedly selected numerous people on my friends list that can be described as liberals (I think, there's a socialist in that group), libertarians and some Goldwater conservatives, Democrats, alternative party members, non-partisans, and Republicans. Most are US citizens, but at least one is a citizen of another country.
At least, we can set a positive example for the kids and hope they learn and join us. - JDenigma, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1zombies187,
I think it's more likely they've moved on since this is a dead thread. I just happened to come across this because I was perusing through my older diggs.
I think it's presumptious and arrogant of you though to think that the "collective" must be forced to subsidiize some charitable purpose in the name of someones national interest just because you think the marketplace isn't capable of handling that. You act as if somehow there are no checks upon charitable organizations and giving in a free market. You are sorely mistaken if that is what you believe.
It's up to people's personal choice as to who they want to donate to and let the buyer beware. In the marketplace there would be plenty of information and watchdog groups that will weed out the bad charities from the good ones. Hell, there could be a Consumers Report of charities and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
What business is it of yours to say from your high horse that these things won't work themselves out for the best at the end of the day? Should we crown you king as the almighty to declare what the collective should donate to because you're smarter than everyone else and you know what's best for people to be charitable about?
You have no basis and no evidence to make this presumptious stance in assuming these things. You are promoting collectivist central planning which is inherently flawed. Central planning does not work. I don't care what you say. If you're going to force people to donate to what you think is noble in your mind, then you have negated the morality of it as it is theft at that point and there is no choice involved and you don't have an infinite wisdom beyond what the marketplace understands. You have the position of a snooty elite who is patronizing in thinking people aren't smart enough to handle these things on their own.
Leave people the ***** alone and let them make their own decisions you busybody! - JDenigma, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1zombies187
Also, another thing, what's to say that anarchy supposedly has been proven to not work? How do we know that? We have no true present day example of anarcho-capitalist system in action and there have been very little, if any examples at all from the past though I think there were some obscure examples of it in which it was successful supposedly in the past such as in Iceland if I remember correctly.
That aside though, pretty much all of human history has been people coercively ruling over others with the iron fist of government instead of people being allowed to live with true liberty as long as they don't actually hurt another person by infringing upon their natural rights, in the spirit of the old English common law. Human race is still rather barbaric in being ruled by government and religion, which are archaic constructs of mankind and eventually mankind will hopefully evolve to the point where government and religion will be ancient relics of primitive man's past. Those evolved people in the future will look back at us with much disdain in thinking how primitive and barbaric we were. If you want to be a higher evolved, morally better person, stop controlling people through government and let people be and let all acts be done cooperatively and voluntarily with a free market sorting out problems. Let human creativity and ingenuity solve problems rather than being lazy and an intellectual sloth by automatically going to the government solve problems in a knee-jerk fashion, instituting these crappy one size fits all solutions.
With no real clear examples of a mature society built upon anarcho-capitalism, who are we to judge whether it has failed or not and whether it could work or not? We don't know. It's that great unknown and therefore it is feared because it is the great unknown. That doesn't mean though that we shouldn't explore it or give it that old college try by working towards it perhaps with a transition period. Until we try, we'll never know. What we have today sure as hell isn't working anyway. All of you on the left and the right have tried in your own various ways over the past century and a half to run government in your own vision as both sides have fought for control of government and the Constitutional republic the founding fathers created, was destroyed by all of you gaining control of the government and usurping the Constitution. So the wonderful experiment of the founding fathers, failed. It was a great, noble idea, but it was apparently doomed from the outset because of the inherent nature of government always wanting to grow when it has this monopoly on this power. Plus they gave the federal government too much power when the anti-federalists lost out to the federalists.
I'm also sure that at the time the founding fathers were having their great new revelation for liberty that it was a very new and radical idea at the time too. Liberty has been the exception, not the rule throughout the history of the human race and the experiment by the founding fathers was really the very first time that such a thing was being tried in the history of the human race. So I'm sure it too at the time was considered to be something foreign and scary, that great unknown. Did that stop them from trying it though? Maybe we should have that same pioneering spirit as them and open our minds to something new and evolutionary. It's high time we do anyway because this world is turning to ***** and all other governments have failed time and time again. There is no denying that. - katie212, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Yeah, If all Americans decide not to pay these unconstitutional taxes, possibly chicofara welfare check is wondering who will pay for him and his family to live off of the taxpayers hardearned money.
- zombies187, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1No response, eh? Just gonna bury me?
- zombies187, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1No response, eh? Just gonna bury me? Well, as long as I'm getting buried I should point out the almost complete lack of participation on the part of conservatives in the my little corner of adult education. Are you guys just all tied up turning stories of war tax resisters into anti-tax conservatives? Is that helpful? Or just missing the point?
- zombies187, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1@RuffRidr
I'm only telling you cause you asked:
I joined Americorps and live on next to nothing while teaching a GED class in New Orleans. - zombies187, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2It takes courage to do what they are doing.
- zombies187, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1@RuffRidr
Also there is a good chance that from MY perspective, the charity he gave to might as well be ***** anonymous. Much as he would probably think that MY charities are worthless. Thats why we need to get together on things that are in the national interest, and let the market decide the other stuff. - zombies187, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1no child left behind war? You forgot the social security war and the war against earmarks.
- zombies187, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1They are standing up against war not taxes. RTFA for details.
- zombies187, on 04/17/2008, -6/+2@turnip
Your charity doesn't touch my world. To participate in OUR society, we need a social contract we have in common as Americans. Religious standards of participation cuts out some. - zombies187, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1I'm a leftist and I have no problem with either one of these issues.
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -5/+140%? *****...
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -8/+4You mean other than the fact that the left opposed the right wing's illegal invasion of Iraq? And the left is opposed to the corporate welfare promoted by the right? And that the left is in favor of good government that is opposed by the right?
- inactive, on 04/16/2008, -7/+3""Good government"? That's an oxymoron"
That is why you right wingers are not fit to govern. If you can't understand the concept of good government how in the hell can you be trusted to deliver it? I expect more for my money. I pay my taxes and I expect competent government. The right has failed repeatedly to deliver good government when they are in power. It is a question of hiring people who can deliver the goods. The right wing has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are incapable of governing well. It's a failure of their ideology. Their concept of governance is simply wrong. Obviously. Just look at the numbers...
http://www.pollingreport.com/gallery.htm#Gsatisfie ... -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is