A letter from Larken Rose on the events transpiring yesterday in Austin.
-
Ian, it's a violation of rights. IRS stealing money from everyone every year, or a rapist saying that it's just to rape. they are both stealing rights (right to own one's body, right to own personal wealth.) Just because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right. And just because a law says you can't commit a crime against a state doesn't mean that it's right either (though it is obviously taboo, and obviously ANY state would say that you can't commit a crime against it.) The point is that just because a group of people say one thing is right doesn't make it just. That's the whole point to a republic (as defined today), the rights of the few are protected against the many. Democracy says that the majority wins. Republic says that the law wins, the natural rights win. So while the rapist argument has nothing to do with terrorism, the idea is related.
josda1000 wrote:
ust because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
I thought the constitution allowed for taxation and thus laws to tax by. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
-
josda1000 wrote:
So while the rapist argument has nothing to do with terrorism, the idea is related.
No, CSS is missing the
(Political || Ideological || Religious)part of the equation. It's not terrorism if you're just defending yourself. It's not terrorism if you're protecting a friend or family member. Terrorism is defined by violence and motivation.josda1000 wrote:
Just because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
You call it stealing. The government calls it the cost of doing business. The government needs money to operate, and that money is (in principle) being collected spent for our benefit. If you want to make the case that it's being used inefficiently and perhaps unethically, then I don't think you'd get many arguments here. But it's not "wrong" to collect taxes.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
No, CSS is missing the (Political || Ideological || Religious) part of the equation. It's not terrorism if you're just defending yourself. It's not terrorism if you're protecting a friend or family member. Terrorism is defined by violence and motivation.
He's not trying to define it as terrorism. He's trying to say that you're saying that raping is justified, just as the IRS is justified. That's the relation he's making, he's not saying that raping IS terrorism.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government calls it the cost of doing business.
Income taxes are not justified. It is not at all. Taxes, in general, are definitely necessary for revenue to the government (it's the only revenue, other than inflation, but let's leave that alone.) Income taxes are the only thing not necessary. I'd suggest instating a sales tax, as opposed to an income tax. The idea is that income taxes are stealing directly from the fruit of our labor every week. They take a days worth of my income per five days (or thereabouts). That's a decent chunk of change, wouldn't you say?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government needs money to operate, and that money is (in principle) being collected spent for our benefit. If you want to make the case that it's being used inefficiently and perhaps unethically, then I don't think you'd get many arguments here. But it's not "wrong" to collect taxes.
Looks like we're in agreement here. But it's more than being SPENT unethically, it's the way it's directly extracted from us every week, without any course of action on our part. We don't even see that tax money; it's just grabbed right out from under us. Don't you think that's a little low? It's shady. It's wrong. But it's tolerated by the majority. What a great bunch of slaves we are.
-
josda1000 wrote:
ust because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
I thought the constitution allowed for taxation and thus laws to tax by. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Ah. read that last line you just stated. "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Here's another reason why a direct income tax is wrong, nevermind the moral reason. It's unconstitutional. But, that's why the sixteenth amendment was created. The problem with this is that it was never ratified properly.
-
josda1000 wrote:
ust because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
I thought the constitution allowed for taxation and thus laws to tax by. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
wolfbinary wrote:
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That is where the current tax code is illegal, it is not uniform unless you believe it means the uniform of the IRS enforcers.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ok, so I missed option three, "Revolt." But that option applies to groups, not individuals. A revolution or other regime change isn't going to be feasible until the number/strength of the people opposed to the government are greater than the number/strength of the people in favor, disregarding those who are lazy/apathetic. One guy flying a plane into a building isn't a revolution.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, so I missed option three, "Revolt." But that option applies to groups, not individuals.
I'm glad you see what I've been trying to say. Terrorism has more to do with groups, not individuals. You must have a lot of small attacks about one specific point to really have a revolution or any terrorism at all. One guy doing one attack is not terrorism, it's an incident.
-
Ok, so I missed option three, "Revolt." But that option applies to groups, not individuals. A revolution or other regime change isn't going to be feasible until the number/strength of the people opposed to the government are greater than the number/strength of the people in favor, disregarding those who are lazy/apathetic. One guy flying a plane into a building isn't a revolution.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)To make my point further, 9/11 had about four incidents. Two planes into the twin towers, building 7 collapsing, and a plane into the pentagon. This incident yesterday was just that. An incident. Yes, it was politically charged, and yes, there was a lot of chaos. But it did not incite fear into many people and didn't even kill many people either.
-
josda1000, what exactly disqualifies this from being terrorism, that he had a small plane rather than a large one, that his goals were political rather than political-religious, or that his target was an IRS building rather that the Pentagon? Barring you giving me some good reason not to consider this act what it so obviously is, then I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist.
See my other posts in this thread for further explanation. Don't want to just repeat or anything... But listen to the way you're speaking. This was just a guy that was pissed off with life and the government. It's not like he's Alqaeda or anything. "I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist". That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid, because this was just an American man that was fed up with life, not your average terrorist from the other side of the planet. He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
-
Yes because so many fucking people are in fear right now, aren't they? Nobody's in fear, they know it's over. Yes, people were killed and a couple of buildings are destroyed. But the one that caused this destruction is dead. It's over. Life goes on. 9/11 can be considered terrorism (if you believe the official story), because those who'd committed the act were a part of a group, and that group still exists.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes because so many f***ing people are in fear right now, aren't they?
You don't need to succeed to be a terrorist. What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have? You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it. It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That is where the current tax code is illegal, it is not uniform unless you believe it means the uniform of the IRS enforcers.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Yes because so many f***ing people are in fear right now, aren't they?
You don't need to succeed to be a terrorist. What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have? You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it. It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Distind wrote:
What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have?
Why don't you read the rest of this thread and find out why he did it? It wasn't to incite fear. It was a political statement against the IRS.
Distind wrote:
You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it.
Yes, he was so lousy at it that he destroyed an IRS building and it was all over the news. (I think he made his point loud and clear.)
Distind wrote:
It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
-
See my other posts in this thread for further explanation. Don't want to just repeat or anything... But listen to the way you're speaking. This was just a guy that was pissed off with life and the government. It's not like he's Alqaeda or anything. "I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist". That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid, because this was just an American man that was fed up with life, not your average terrorist from the other side of the planet. He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet. Your average terrorist is very much our own flesh and blood. Kaczynski, who I mentioned previously, was a terrorist, McVeigh was a terrorist, people who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists, people who attack animal research labs are terrorists, and Joe Stack was a terrorist. That word means someone who threatens or commits violence against non-military targets in an attempt to further a cause. It does not mean someone from an organized group, it does not mean someone who wasn't "fed up with life", and it most certainly does not mean someone "from the other side of the planet".
-
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet. Your average terrorist is very much our own flesh and blood. Kaczynski, who I mentioned previously, was a terrorist, McVeigh was a terrorist, people who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists, people who attack animal research labs are terrorists, and Joe Stack was a terrorist. That word means someone who threatens or commits violence against non-military targets in an attempt to further a cause. It does not mean someone from an organized group, it does not mean someone who wasn't "fed up with life", and it most certainly does not mean someone "from the other side of the planet".
James L. Thomson wrote:
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet.
OK, yes, I'd agree. But he planned to die, and it was one incident. That's all I'm saying. And I still stand by the reasons why he did what he did, not exactly what he did. Though, he got his point across pretty well, by striking one of the IRS buildings themselves.
-
No link, so I'm posting the whole thing... ----- Original Message ----- From: tmds-list-owner@mail-list.com Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:47 PM Subject: Mr. Stack, Rest in Peace Rest in Peace, Mr. Stack Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process. The control freaks, and their propagandists who pretend to be "reporters," will no doubt spend the next few weeks demonizing the man, or painting him as crazy. You can decide for yourself if this was the case. As best I can tell, today Joseph Stack burned down his house, and then crashed his plane into the Austin, Texas offices of the IRS. We don't need to ponder the reason, because he told us why, in a suicide note, which can be read here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.infoarticle24783.htm I found reading the note very disturbing, mainly because Mr. Stack was obviously far more intelligent, and more in touch with reality, than the vast majority of Americans. In other words, compared to the deluded masses of conformists, Mr. Stack was the sane one. Several statements in his suicide note show that he had overcome the authoritarian statist indoctrination far more than most people ever will. Does the following sentiment sound familiar? "We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place ... I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood." [Joseph Stack, 2/18/2010] A lot of you will find aspects of Mr. Stack's personal story disturbingly familiar. I see no need to parse every sentence of it, though I would urge everyone to read it all, carefully. What would drive a rational, intelligent man to do such a thing? Of course, the control freaks and their propagandists will paint Mr. Stack as a nutcase, and will claim that his actions, by themselves, prove that he was insane. But they don't. They prove he was desperate, and frustrated, and that he was willing to GIVE UP HIS LIFE to try to resist injustice. And THAT is the part the parasite class does NOT want people to think about. They will paint him as a "mentally unstable" "tax cheat," or apply to him whatever other labels they think might make people not want to THINK about what Mr.
josda1000 wrote:
Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process.
And, deliberately or not, took the life of a fellow citizen. But, of course, this citizen's life was forfeit: he was merely an employee of the IRS, "the largest extortion racket in the world", and so of no value. After all, they "from CID down to the paper-pushers, are CONSTANTLY initiating violence, every time they levy a bank account, or swipe someone's home, or send threatening letters (i.e., 'pay up or we'll do nasty things to you'). It is their job to use violence, and threats of violence, to take property from those to whom it rightfully belongs." Ignoring the fact that they take that property legally, and that the laws (sorry, scribbles) are made by a democratically elected body: Mr Rose has declared open season on all IRS employees. He is saying that anyone is entitled to use violence on them, as they initiate violence and are thus the aggressors. If I were Mr Rose, I would watch my back. There may be armed IRS employees out there who also think that the law is merely politicians' scribbles, and they know where he lives.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
No, CSS is missing the (Political || Ideological || Religious) part of the equation. It's not terrorism if you're just defending yourself. It's not terrorism if you're protecting a friend or family member. Terrorism is defined by violence and motivation.
He's not trying to define it as terrorism. He's trying to say that you're saying that raping is justified, just as the IRS is justified. That's the relation he's making, he's not saying that raping IS terrorism.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government calls it the cost of doing business.
Income taxes are not justified. It is not at all. Taxes, in general, are definitely necessary for revenue to the government (it's the only revenue, other than inflation, but let's leave that alone.) Income taxes are the only thing not necessary. I'd suggest instating a sales tax, as opposed to an income tax. The idea is that income taxes are stealing directly from the fruit of our labor every week. They take a days worth of my income per five days (or thereabouts). That's a decent chunk of change, wouldn't you say?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government needs money to operate, and that money is (in principle) being collected spent for our benefit. If you want to make the case that it's being used inefficiently and perhaps unethically, then I don't think you'd get many arguments here. But it's not "wrong" to collect taxes.
Looks like we're in agreement here. But it's more than being SPENT unethically, it's the way it's directly extracted from us every week, without any course of action on our part. We don't even see that tax money; it's just grabbed right out from under us. Don't you think that's a little low? It's shady. It's wrong. But it's tolerated by the majority. What a great bunch of slaves we are.
josda1000 wrote:
He's not trying to define it as terrorism. He's trying to say that you're saying that raping is justified, just as the IRS is justified. That's the relation he's making, he's not saying that raping IS terrorism.
It's nice of you to help him out, but that's not what he said. "They were the good guys regardless if they won or not. Their cause was just, reasonable, common sense. With your logic, any women who fights back against a rapist and looses, deserved to be raped and punished." He's equating the American revolutionaries with the "women" in this analogy, and the British colonial government with the "rapist". As I stated that the revolutionaries were terrorists, he's saying that by my logic, a woman fighting back against being raped is a terrorist, and that's completely idiotic. Now, if he has his analogy backwards, and is TRYING to equate the rapist to a terrorist, he has a stronger case, since rape CAN be an act of terrorism in certain contexts (ex. Guerrilla force attacks a village and rapes the women to punish them for siding with the enemy).
josda1000 wrote:
Income taxes are not justified. It is not at all. Taxes, in general, are definitely necessary for revenue to the government (it's the only revenue, other than inflation, but let's leave that alone.) Income taxes are the only thing not necessary. I'd suggest instating a sales tax, as opposed to an income tax. The idea is that income taxes are stealing directly from the fruit of our labor every week. They take a days worth of my income per five days (or thereabouts). That's a decent chunk of change, wouldn't you say?
Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't justified. A sales tax charges you for every purchase you make, and an income tax charges you for selling your services. In some sense, it's taxing the company for purchasing your services, and they're just stating their offer (salary) with taxes included. They could switch it around, call it a "service tax" paid by employers, and those employers would just cut all salaries to compensate. The advantage to doing it this way, is that the rate can be adjusted based on your individual living situation. If it was a "service tax", and instead of making 50k a year and paying 20k in taxes, you just made 30k a year and your company paid 20k in taxes for employing you... Would you still consider that unjust? Now if you're just
-
James L. Thomson wrote:
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet.
OK, yes, I'd agree. But he planned to die, and it was one incident. That's all I'm saying. And I still stand by the reasons why he did what he did, not exactly what he did. Though, he got his point across pretty well, by striking one of the IRS buildings themselves.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, yes, I'd agree. But he planned to die, and it was one incident.
Name one suicide bomber who didn't plan to die and has been responsible for more than one incident.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process.
And, deliberately or not, took the life of a fellow citizen. But, of course, this citizen's life was forfeit: he was merely an employee of the IRS, "the largest extortion racket in the world", and so of no value. After all, they "from CID down to the paper-pushers, are CONSTANTLY initiating violence, every time they levy a bank account, or swipe someone's home, or send threatening letters (i.e., 'pay up or we'll do nasty things to you'). It is their job to use violence, and threats of violence, to take property from those to whom it rightfully belongs." Ignoring the fact that they take that property legally, and that the laws (sorry, scribbles) are made by a democratically elected body: Mr Rose has declared open season on all IRS employees. He is saying that anyone is entitled to use violence on them, as they initiate violence and are thus the aggressors. If I were Mr Rose, I would watch my back. There may be armed IRS employees out there who also think that the law is merely politicians' scribbles, and they know where he lives.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
Mr Rose has declared open season on all IRS employees.
He has many times in the past already. So yes, he has.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Ignoring the fact that they take that property legally
Yes, they can, because the Constitution says so. Though originally, the Constitution prohibited this very type of tax.
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is saying that anyone is entitled to use violence on them, as they initiate violence and are thus the aggressors.
Yup.
Bob Emmett wrote:
If I were Mr Rose, I would watch my back. There may be armed IRS employees out there who also think that the law is merely politicians' scribbles, and they know where he lives.
I'm sure he does constantly. He's been doing this a long time bro.
-
Ah. read that last line you just stated. "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Here's another reason why a direct income tax is wrong, nevermind the moral reason. It's unconstitutional. But, that's why the sixteenth amendment was created. The problem with this is that it was never ratified properly.
josda1000 wrote:
direct income tax is wrong, nevermind the moral reason. It's unconstitutional.
Your interpretation. I've never heard the supreme court hear any case involving income tax and it's constitutionality. How is an income tax immoral? Please explain.
josda1000 wrote:
But, that's why the sixteenth amendment was created. The problem with this is that it was never ratified properly.
How was it not?
-
josda1000 wrote:
OK, yes, I'd agree. But he planned to die, and it was one incident.
Name one suicide bomber who didn't plan to die and has been responsible for more than one incident.
Oh brother, come on. Look, what I'm saying is that this is ONE guy. Terrorists from Alqaeda and such are a GROUP. Yes, they strike with suicide bombers, but there's a bunch more where that comes from, because that's a GROUP of bombers. Suicides such as this last incident was from ONE GUY. ONE. JUST ONE. That's it. It's over. Done. Finito. Notice that nobody's afraid he'll attack again, while people are afraid that Alqaeda will, because there are MORE! There is no more fear of this man. He's gone.
-
See my other posts in this thread for further explanation. Don't want to just repeat or anything... But listen to the way you're speaking. This was just a guy that was pissed off with life and the government. It's not like he's Alqaeda or anything. "I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist". That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid, because this was just an American man that was fed up with life, not your average terrorist from the other side of the planet. He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
josda1000 wrote:
He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
Dude he is not "our own" flesh and blood. He was a nutbag terrorist that flew a plane into a building. Get over this patriotic bullshit. He flew a goddamn plane into a building regardless of his reasons (I hate the IRS, my wife left me, my dog died, I'm just mental). You don't get much more terrorist than that. Terrorist doesn't mean that you are from the middle east and have a grudge against the US it means you terrorize people. Fly plane into building = people in building are in terror. You are a terrorist. It's quite simple.
-
Distind wrote:
What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have?
Why don't you read the rest of this thread and find out why he did it? It wasn't to incite fear. It was a political statement against the IRS.
Distind wrote:
You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it.
Yes, he was so lousy at it that he destroyed an IRS building and it was all over the news. (I think he made his point loud and clear.)
Distind wrote:
It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
josda1000 wrote:
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
That's fine and dandy, but quit acting like he was a hero or a wake up call. They guy killed people, innocent people, with a freaking airplane. You know, a bunch of people had an issue with western capitalism so they flew planes into the symbolic center of the market. This guy had an issue with the IRS, so he flew a plane into the IRS offices nearby. The difference in their actions was he didn't have a high rise target and a bunch of jet fuel to make it spectacular. Don't act like comparing apples to apples is invalid.