Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

[Alpo]

Gary Johnson was/is a watered-down Ron Pual. There's no doubt, of course though, that he still would've have been a much better choice than the blue is, or red would have been.

Yeah, that was my thought too, it's why I liked him. In truth though I can hardly stand politics these days. People treat the political parties like football teams, and candidates like celebrities.

I remember in this last cycle someone telling me they were voting for Perry because he was "just like us" and could "teach them a lesson" (speaking of some other party). The attributes they were using to evaluate this politician were so irrelevant that I couldn't even formulate a response at the time. All I could do was give them a dull look and mumble something agreeable. It's still horrible to think on lol.

[Mario F.]

I am a libertarian as well. It actually seems to be the perfect political position to make people of every other philosophical bent go up in a ball of flame.

It's not that I believe all government is a bad thing, it's just that in my mind the rights of an individual need to be paramount to all other concerns.

I cannot subscribe to that view. Only if we consider the responsibilities of an individual as paramount to all other concerns, can we feel safe with individual rights. And responsibilities can only be checked and enforced by means of a strong government. Likewise, individual rights can only be protected by means of a strong government. Libertarians always seemed to me utopians with too much faith in humankind and with a dim view of what a government can do to protect their rights and enforce their responsibilities.

In fact I fail to understand libertarian-ism at all. Personal freedom isn't removed by a regulating state if its legislative body guarantees their constitutional rights. Libertarians instead tend to view "freedoms" where they don't exist and tend to demand rights that aren't guaranteed by their country's constitution. If anything, libertarians should demand constitutional amends (which can only be protected by strong and interventive governments) instead of demanding for the reduction of a government reach. Taxes don't remove freedoms, licensed and regulated businesses don't remove freedoms. The only way they do is through a rather convoluted thought process not far away from demagogy.

[Will1]

And responsibilities can only be checked and enforced by means of a strong government. Likewise, individual rights can only be protected by means of a strong government. Libertarians always seemed to me utopians with too much faith in humankind and with a dim view of what a government can do to protect their rights and enforce their responsibilities.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Mario, do you have "income" derived from an employer? Do you file your 1040 every year with the IRS? Don't you know that what the IRS does is a gross violation of the preceding?

In case you don't recogbize it, it is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme law of the United States. If your salary and wage information are not your personal private papers I don't know what is! The IRS has no right with that information without a warrant. I haven't filed a 1040 in years and I defy the IRS to have me arrested. I know that the federal judiciary are hypocrites who took an oath to support and defend our Constitution but they regularly violate it. I am relying on a jury that can read plain American English and I intend to make a fool of the federal judge who would try the case. If you don't have the courage to refuse to go along with the illegal acts of the IRS then you deserve what you are getting. I will represent myself if the IRS ever comes after me because virtually every awyer is a traiter bent on appeasing the tyrants who now control our government. The American people are cowards, afraid to stand up to the tyranny of the IRS.

[Alpo]

I cannot subscribe to that view. Only if we consider the responsibilities of an individual as paramount to all other concerns, can we feel safe with individual rights. And responsibilities can only be checked and enforced by means of a strong government. Likewise, individual rights can only be protected by means of a strong government. Libertarians always seemed to me utopians with too much faith in humankind and with a dim view of what a government can do to protect their rights and enforce their responsibilities.

In fact I fail to understand libertarian-ism at all. Personal freedom isn't removed by a regulating state if its legislative body guarantees their constitutional rights. Libertarians instead tend to view "freedoms" where they don't exist and tend to demand rights that aren't guaranteed by their country's constitution. If anything, libertarians should demand constitutional amends (which can only be protected by strong and interventive governments) instead of demanding for the reduction of a government reach. Taxes don't remove freedoms, licensed and regulated businesses don't remove freedoms. The only way they do is through a rather convoluted thought process not far away from demagogy.

Most of what you've done here is ascribe to libertarians views they may or may not have. You've also made a few claims. I'll respond to a few, but you need to understand that my views are not necessarily representative of all libertarians (Not all libertarians ascribe to the same philosophy, for example in the area of intellectual property rights).

1. Libertarians instead tend to view "freedoms" where they don't exist and tend to demand rights that aren't guaranteed by their country's constitution.

A : Libertarian philosophy hold that these freedoms are intrinsic to an individual, instilled either by a creator, or as a consequence of a persons own intellect. As an atheist, I tend toward believing the latter.

2. libertarians should demand constitutional amends (which can only be protected by strong and interventive governments)

A: Libertarians distinguish between different levels of government. They aren't necessarily against all government, or even a minimalistic one. They are for keeping the most localized levels strong, under the belief that this affords more freedom than a one-size-fits-all type of government.

3. Taxes don't remove freedoms, licensed and regulated businesses don't remove freedoms.

A: Under a libertarian view, involuntary taxes are a loss of freedom, as your money is considered to be your property. Why?

1. A person has the right to control how they spend their time.

2. A person may contract away (consensual contracts are a large part of a Libertarians world view) their rights in this respect, in exchange for money (a job).

3. Just as your time was your own, everything benefit a person gets from contracting it away is their own.


The same steps can be applied to understand a libertarian's view on licensing and regulation.

Am I saying all of this is correct, good and perfect? No, I'm trying to explain what a libertarian philosophy is and how it is derived (so please take it in that context).

[MutantJohn]

Will, I'm not sure you understand the limitations placed upon the Constitution. The government isn't removing that right, they just regulate how far it extends. It's the same reason why you can't legally go running around in public buildings shouting, "Fire! Fire! Fire!"

Also, the government is the one who says the money you earn has any value at all so of course they're going to monitor how much you make. Do you honestly believe that money is real? It's a made up concept used to control the mass chaos that is humanity.

[Alpo]

Will, I'm not sure you understand the limitations placed upon the Constitution. The government isn't removing that right, they just regulate how far it extends. It's the same reason why you can't legally go running around in public buildings shouting, "Fire! Fire! Fire!"

Also, the government is the one who says the money you earn has any value at all so of course they're going to monitor how much you make. Do you honestly believe that money is real? It's a made up concept used to control the mass chaos that is humanity.

Money isn't made up to control people (although I get that it looks that way). The concept was invented to facilitate exchange of goods and services. It's existence helps to overcome some limitations on the barter system, the main one being that it's hard to figure out the exchange rate between things like goats and oranges.

[Mario F.]

Coincidentally enough there's a news article this week on America Economia, a Mexican business newspaper, revealing what a combination of deregulation, limited government reach, and unlicensed tax free businesses can do to an economy that is required to compete in a global scale market and to the well being of its labor force.

@will,

The word "unreasonable" in that constitutional article, seems to me perfectly describes the ability of IRS to access your papers. The word "unreasonable" was also put there on purpose to allow for lawful search. Naturally you don't agree its lawful. But what you cannot argue is that the IRS breaks your constitutional right unless you don't know the semantic meaning of the word "unreasonable" and have no knowledge that avoiding taxes is a criminal offense.

[Click_here]

[To Mario] Do you file your 1040 every year with the IRS?

You might want to read the location under Mario's join date.

[Will1]

www.thelawthatneverwas.com

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ayb02bwp0

www.freedomabovefortune.com

[whiteflags]

Can we assume, now that you are dumping links, that you are done arguing?

The word "unreasonable" in that constitutional article, seems to me perfectly describes the ability of IRS to access your papers. The word "unreasonable" was also put there on purpose to allow for lawful search. Naturally you don't agree its lawful. But what you cannot argue is that the IRS breaks your constitutional right unless you don't know the semantic meaning of the word "unreasonable" and have no knowledge that avoiding taxes is a criminal offense.

In further support, the Fourth Amendment is not a valid argument, because the system is voluntary, in the same way you would volunteer information: citizens are given the opportunity to determine the correct tax themselves and fill out forms, rather than have someone in the government do it for them. As such, the argument that the IRS or anyone needs your "papers" is wrong.

[Alpo]

Coincidentally enough there's a news article this week on America Economia, a Mexican business newspaper, revealing what a combination of deregulation, limited government reach, and unlicensed tax free businesses can do to an economy that is required to compete in a global scale market and to the well being of its labor force.

Well, if Will doesn't have anything himself, I have a question about this article you have posted, Mario.

Generally a black market fills a gap in goods and services that aren't considered legal by whatever government. The definition of "black market" encompasses the idea that this trade is illegal:

Black Market - an illegal traffic or trade in officially controlled or scarce commodities. -Google

Whereas the term "deregulation" implies a loosening of restrictions on laws:

Deregulation - is the process of removing or reducing state regulations.

The article states that an estimated 60% of the work force is employed in this black market, which I agree is a large amount. Also it lists the areas in which the majority of the black market does it's business:

"The report shows that 62% of the shadow economy is in three areas: trade (in a range of goods from the formal sector), small-scale manufacturing and farming, and forestry and fishing activities. The latter industries traditionally employ the country's most marginalized citizens. "

My question is this. If this is a result of deregulation, how come that selfsame deregulation doesn't extend to making this market a legitimate enterprise?

The article claims that 62% of this market is in manufacturing, farming, forestry, and fishing. How is any of this considered to be the fault of deregulation if these seemingly mundane things are illegal?

Edit: Claiming that this is a result of deregulation sounds to me as if they are saying the following:

"62% of our work force is engaged in illegal activities, this is a result of making too many things legal.". So I'm asking in earnestness for clarification.

[whiteflags]

That's kind of a silly way to read it because the article makes it clear that this is about an economy that doesn't produce tax revenue or contribute to social services, right in the first paragraph.

It might sound fine to you that things are humming along without the government, and you might even be right, but it's pretty terribad when a government can't do what it's supposed to do because it has no money.

[Alpo]

That's kind of a silly way to read it because the article makes it clear that this is about an economy that doesn't produce tax revenue or contribute to social services, right in the first paragraph.

It might sound fine to you that things are humming along without the government, and you might even be right, but it's pretty terribad when a government can't do what it's supposed to do because it has no money.

What might sound fine to me makes no difference. The article claims that making too many things legal has led to have 62% of the work force engaged in an illegal activity. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, the statement doesn't make any sense.

I agree it's sad, having 62% of your workforce be considered illegal is a bit extreme. Could you imagine if 2/3 people you saw on the street were criminals? How can that many criminals be the result of too many things being legal?

Saying my interpretation is silly isn't really an answer to this, as I'm asking about a contradiction that is built into the fabric of the claim the article is making.

Edit: I'm not trying to be a troll and say "If you can't explain this your personal beliefs are wrong! HAHAHA!!", then skip off and leave everyone boiling. I'm asking specifically about this Mexico situation, it doesn't have any bearing on personal beliefs, or being right or wrong about anything.

[Will1]

No State shall ....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

Article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution. It is obvious that the meaning of this is that the government must back the currency we use with Gold and Silver. And you people seem to trust that the same government that is blatantly violating this provision of our Constitution is tellin the truth when they say that the individual income tax is a power they have. The truth is that in 1896 the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional because it was not "apportioned." In 1909 the Congressmen who wanted to tax our livelyhood secretly waited until the recess then got together and passed what became the 16th Amendment. In 1913, Secretary of State, Philander Knox, declared it ratified when it wasn't. A man named Bill Benson went to Washington to review the ratification of the amendment. When he found an incomplete record he went to the 48 state capitals to review the ratification. He documented the proof that he found. The 16th amendment was never ratiied. It is well known by people who look for the truth that Congress, and the President have been lying to us for the past hundred years and the federal judiciary is in on the fraud. Bill Benson tried to get his proof in front of the courts but they ruled it "irrelevant." The Supreme Court refuses to review his proof. If you went to the first link that I provided in post #39 and did a little reading you'd see what I've seen. I won't get into the fraud that the government is perpetrating against us but what I find beautiful about the fraud is that Kentucky is listed by the government as one of the states that ratified the 16th Amendment. What follows is the vote of the Kentucky State Senate on the adoption of the 16th Amendment, copied right out of the Kentucky Journal of the Senate for February 10, 1910. 9 for and 22 against ratfying the 16th Amendment. Does the federal government lie to us? You bet they do!

And the question being taken upon the concurring in the adoption

of said Resolution.The yeas and nays being required thereon were as follows,.viz:
Those who voted in the affirmative were-

Hubble, R. L.,Mathers, Dr. C. W.,Vice, John L., —9Brown, R. B.,Graham, J. C,Hogg, E. E.,Beard, P. J.,Bertram, E.,Brown, Gus,

Those who voted in the negative were—
Smith, J. T.,Taylor, E. M.,Taylor, G. A.,Thomas, Claude M.,Tichenor, Dr. B. F.Watkins, J. J.,Wyatt, G. T.,^-22Linn, Conn,Nagle, Chas. W,.New comb, H. D.,Oliver, A. J.,Ryan, Mark,Salmon, R. M.,Smith, Hilliard,Arnett, B. M:,Arnett, L. W.,Catlett, J. R.,Chipman, N. B.,Combs, Thos. A.,Cureton, Nat. C,Dowling, W. E.,

Grigsby, B. C,

If you doubt this, I suggest that you go to Frankfort Kentucky and review the "Kentucky Journal of the Senate" for yourself.

If you trust the hypocrite tyrants that now control the fedeal government, you are an ignorant fool!

[whiteflags]

I have heard the argument that Congress originally passed the amendment while it was basically inactive, but it really doesn't matter, especially in this case. An amendment approved by Congress must be ratified by 75% of the States. They had a chance to reject it. You will not undo ratification by stirring up controversy, saying that one or two states did not ratify. I can easily find that 38 states did. Further, only three states specifically rejected the amendment. See http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html. I'm open minded, but you would have to prove fraud by a number of state legislatures.

A tax protester didn't do this once before and the court ruled against him. Benson's book was even brought up in the opinion, which you can take to mean that they are specifically rejecting his argument.

Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.[13]) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted.

So that is how we get from the original Article that required direct taxes be divided evenly among people, to the sixteenth amendment which removes that requirement, and nothing else, to the U.S. Tax Code.

I will happily be a fool who stays out of jail. Freedom is what you make of it. I accept the reality of the world I live in, legal or otherwise.