General

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

gotlucky — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:32:10 GMT

Does that guy even drive a car? Wouldn't he have to buy gas...with gold? lol

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

John James — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:41:59 GMT

gotlucky:
It's pointless if you drive it around in some backwoods area where no one can see it.

Whoa...Freedom4Me73986? Could this really be you?

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

gotlucky — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:28:08 GMT

I haven't filed anything in over two decades. I have a sign on my car where a license plate is normally mounted that states "private property, not for hire, no licesne or registration required to travel, exempt from levy, consumer good" I do not carry any kind of government identification around. I am not in jail.

Pics or it didn't happen. Even better, show us a video of you driving around in your car where there are police with that sign instead of a license plate.

I hope you enjoy 100% taxation, being disarmed, and rounded up and placed in a FEMA camp when the SHTF. I am sure it will be a pleasnt country when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency of the world and the capital possessing class gets out of dodge. Enjoy prison .. pfft ... who the hell are you? You are nobody and your words are not worthy of my attention. Let me know when the libertarian messiah arrives to deliver everyone from coercion so this free market utopia I keep hearing about that doesn't already exist because a free market by definition is absent violence can be implemented.

And yet you respond anyway. Whatever, you're a liar, so it doesn't really matter what you say. Show us a video of you driving not only without a license plate, but also with your voodoo that apparently wards off agents of the state. You have to be driving IN SIGHT OF police officers for this video to even mean something. It's pointless if you drive it around in some backwoods area where no one can see it.

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Live_Free_Or_Die — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:39:38 GMT

@Blargg

I liked your post. I hope you write more about your thoughts on compliance.

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Live_Free_Or_Die — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:27:58 GMT

@Clayton

Same goes... let me know when the libertarian messiah shows up and makes trespass an impossibility so everyone can live in a free market. Government blah, blah, blah. And what would you do about a mafia or thug pda arising in a market with no state? Not a damn thing. Don't throw hypocrite arguments at me because I am going to point it out.

It is the king's court and I am one of the American King's. You are apparently one of the subjects of my government. I have no sympathy for you or any of your fellow indentured servants who volunteer into their own bondage. I 100% support my government keeping its subjects in line. The subjects get to pick and choose their own leaders so they have no reason to bitch about any of the rules their elected leaders impose upon them.

The "freeman" does not solicit conflict. The freeman knows he does not need a plate on his car and can back that fact up using governments own authorities of case law. So don't sit here and bitch or whine to me or try to distort "freeman" because you put a plate on your car despite that for the last one hundred years the supreme court has repeatedly held the people have a natural and fundamental right to travel. The right to travel is so well settled in case law it is not open for debate according to any court.

I have already acknowledged what I do but you are going to stil sit there and run your mouth and bitch about how afraid you are of your own government. You are going to continue to bitch about how evil the state is and pretend like you would act differently if there was no state. The majority of force rules in nature. Get over it because there is nothing you can do about it. It is never going to change and since the majority of force will always rule in nature it doesn't matter what so called system man thinks up it will always be subject to a potential hostile takeover.

As I previously stated an electron is ruled by a negative charge and simply removing the nucleus does not change that fact. Removing the nucleus simply creates an environment where an electron has no orderly orbit and I am not for electrons governed by a capacity randomly traversing society. I am hopping out of this thread because I am not going to continue to listen to an electron bitch about being governed by a capacity when men can be anything they want to be. You choose servitude and I choose freedom. Obviously servitude must have some good benefits and afford you a quality of life that you don't feel freedom offers. In any event it sounds like your problem and it also sounds like you have no right to bitch about your own choices when you are free to do anything you want to do. What you want is freedom with limited liability and I do not subscribe to or endorse the notion one can only be free in a so called free market because a libertarian messiah intervenes against nature to create a market absent violence.

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Clayton — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:38:09 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

They can do anything they want to you... and get away with it.

Clayton -

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Clayton — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:30:27 GMT

@Live_free: I guess these folks were just all ignorant of their God-given right not to be indiscriminately fire-bombed:

The fact is that the government are thugs and, thus, if they deem it in their interests to kidnap you, they will. Your only recourse? The thugs' courts! And, by the way, they are not lawful proceedings, they are courts - an extension of the King's court. They are shams, star-chambers, kangaroo-courts... they are modeled on military tribunals (victor's justice) and Inquisitional courts (self-incrimination, confession, voluntary agreement to abrogation of one's rights, etc.) and are nothing but the administrative arm of the State cloaked in the robes of "law" to give the illusion that something to do with law is happening in them when, in fact, what is occurring has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with law.

The government is like a blind, rabid dog (h/t Blumert, Rockwell). Just like the safest place to be around a rabid dog is as far away the hell as possible from it, so the best place to be around the government's police or courts is as far away the hell from them as possible. The "freeman" does the precise opposite of this. He solicits contact with the police by not placing license plates on his car, and he solicits contact with jail guards and court officers by getting arrested in order to "prove" his innocence to the ambivalent-yet-slightly-amused judge. As Will Grigg ceasely documents, every one of these encounters is life-threatening.

Clayton -

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Blargg — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:18:25 GMT

I've thought about compliance and traced it not just to fear, but also the idea that oneself is responsible for being put in jail, etc. because one can do things to reduce its likelihood (similar to the ideas on the way-overworked topic of rape). As long as that idea is legitimate, one will follow what they want so as not to regret what happens if they don't. But it's possible for one to arrive at the conclusion that it's a broken idea, that the things necessary to satisfy them are insane to try to do, and stop entertaining it intellectually. That dissolves all the empty beliefs around it, and starts a cascade revealing all the things one was doing to serve it, a much more compelling case for how fruitless it really was to try all that time. This sort of thing can occur in other situations, like family (where I experienced it).

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Live_Free_Or_Die — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:04:22 GMT

@stupid ass fear mongering comments

I haven't filed anything in over two decades. I have a sign on my car where a license plate is normally mounted that states "private property, not for hire, no licesne or registration required to travel, exempt from levy, consumer good" I do not carry any kind of government identification around. I am not in jail. I am not going to jail unless I am straight up kidnapped by thugs. I have been kidnapped and placed in jail before. I have been stolen from by thugs before. There was once a time I was ignorant and subscribed to all of this fictional, arbitrary, legal title bullshit but don't think for one second I am going to buy into any of the bullshit in this thread that I should be afraid of something ... kiss my ass. It is not going to happen. These people 1) put on their pants one leg at a time the same way I do, 2) chose to be a public servants, and 3) are there to serve me if I so choose. I am supposed to live in fear of <1% of the population? Get real.

If you do not have any taxable income to report and are exercising your natural and fundamental right to travel I might be interested in what you have to say but as I have previously stated ... If you are living in fear I do not give a shit what your opinion is. You want others to do for you that which you are afraid to do for yourself. You are the problem not the solution.

@Gotlucky

I hope you enjoy 100% taxation, being disarmed, and rounded up and placed in a FEMA camp when the SHTF. I am sure it will be a pleasnt country when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency of the world and the capital possessing class gets out of dodge. Enjoy prison .. pfft ... who the hell are you? You are nobody and your words are not worthy of my attention. Let me know when the libertarian messiah arrives to deliver everyone from coercion so this free market utopia I keep hearing about that doesn't already exist because a free market by definition is absent violence can be implemented.

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

John James — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:22:40 GMT

Clayton:
You think all those commentators, pundits, anchors, etc. that appear on FOX aren't loaded (6-figure net worth or greater)? And married to doctors, lawyers, bankers, judges, city council-members, etc. who are also loaded? Whose fortunes are built on legal privileges (State-regulated licensures and permits) and on expanding, promoting and working for the State?

Did I say that?

P.S.

Thanks for providing another example of my point by completely avoiding the contradictory nature of your comments in the exchange I most recently quoted.

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Clayton — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:41:18 GMT

That being said, please point out to me where in the world the phrase "tax-resister" appears in the quote I posted from you. And then see if you can find anything that you do see as "pejorative" in it.

*sigh - and sometimes you obsess over crap that isn't really that important... this was nothing more than an honest mistake, I just completely missed that you were referring to "rich assholes".

And yeah, there are a lot of rich assholes in the world. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people who are rich are assholes... because they got rich by hurting people, that is, utilizing the political structure to trample over the rights of their fellow citizens. This is an inevitable consequence of the way the system is built. You think all those commentators, pundits, anchors, etc. that appear on FOX aren't loaded (6-figure net worth or greater)? And married to doctors, lawyers, bankers, judges, city council-members, etc. who are also loaded? Whose fortunes are built on legal privileges (State-regulated licensures and permits) and on expanding, promoting and working for the State?

Clayton -

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

John James — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:43:51 GMT

Clayton:
@JJ: Hmm, I don't see anything pejorative in "tax-resisters"... I mean, I know the progressives mean it pejoratively, but so what, they mean "capitalist" pejoratively, too... "tax-protestors" seems more patronizing to me so I don't use that and I can't think of any other labels... "fuck-no-to-taxation-ers" maybe? If you have any other suggestions, I'm happy to hear them...

This is the kind of thing that really confuses the heck out of me. You're obviously intelligent, but there's a great deal of the time when you avoid having to deal with things you say that don't make sense by simply ignoring them when you're called on it, or pretending something else was said entirely. One of the more prominent examples I can think of is this thread.

That being said, please point out to me where in the world the phrase "tax-resister" appears in the quote I posted from you. And then see if you can find anything that you do see as "pejorative" in it.

Clayton: But if you have a network of two or more people with solidarity (mafia, family, gang, subculture, tight-knit religion, whatever), then you can break this system. Not only can you do real business with each other off the books, but you can do real business with untrusted parties and then use each other to move that money off the books with fictitious expenses.

John: Right, because gangbangers and goodfellas totally stay out of jail. It's not like Al Capone or anyone like that ever got caught up in tax evasion charges.

Clayton: Yes... and it's always through the use of moles, snitches and other individuals who really shouldn't have been trusted in teh first place.

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Clayton — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:17:50 GMT

@JJ: Hmm, I don't see anything pejorative in "tax-resisters"... I mean, I know the progressives mean it pejoratively, but so what, they mean "capitalist" pejoratively, too... "tax-protestors" seems more patronizing to me so I don't use that and I can't think of any other labels... "fuck-no-to-taxation-ers" maybe? If you have any other suggestions, I'm happy to hear them...

Right, because gangbangers and goodfellas totally stay out of jail. It's not like Al Capone or anyone like that ever got caught up in tax evasion charges.

Yes... and it's always through the use of moles, snitches and other individuals who really shouldn't have been trusted in teh first place. But the bigger point here is that, by the time you're moving enough revenue that you catch the attention of the authorities on that account alone, you need to be using the more sophisticated methods that are already being used by the big fish today. By the time you're there, you should have enough cash to afford to attend a "Sovereign Man" type seminar and learn from the pros who do it all the time (and don't get caught) how to keep big money off the books. A lot of it just boils down to being able to afford to be cross-jurisdictional.

Clayton -

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

John James — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:58:02 GMT

Clayton:
(mafia, family, gang, subculture, tight-knit religion, whatever), then you can break this system.

Right, because gangbangers and goodfellas totally stay out of jail. It's not like Al Capone or anyone like that ever got caught up in tax evasion charges.

Above that, you need to get more "industry standard" methods like Cayman accounts or whatever it is these days that all the rich assholes are doing to keep their money out of harm's way.

I love how you're basically promoting tax evasion, yet still refer to those who avoid paying taxes the same way as all the progressives.

Re: You vs. Your Corporate Identity

Clayton — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:05:43 GMT

@Live_Free: Did you never see the bullies beat up the nerds in middle or high school?

BULLY: (Knocks NERD up against locker, scatters his books and papers across the floor)

NERD: You can't do that! I'm going to tell Miss Fleenor!

BULLY: Oh yeah?

BULLY: (Drags nerd off to the stair well under the stair steps, and punches him in the stomach while his buddies muffle his cries)

----

There is no point in trying to hold a logical debate with the bully. At the end of the day, he always holds the trump card: wasting your ass. The dangerous game that tax-resisters are playing is that the power of the State cannot be wielded willy-nilly by government employees. Each kind of government employee has certain, very delimited powers. This limitation has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the public or even the law... it has to do with protecting the power both from internal coup and from inadvertent incitement of popular resistance to the government by braindead behavior of low-ranking government officials.

Thus, the police officer can't just bring you to your knees and execute you with a bullet to the back of your head. But he can shoot you on the thinnest of pretexts... the key is that the pretext must be there so that he can justify pulling the trigger to his superiors. If he were to pull the trigger without pretext, his superiors would turn on him not because he has committed murder (murder is absolutely fine, so long as the pretext is in place), but because he has endangered the entire structure. Popular revolt might ensue. The public might start calling for the police chief's head on a platter. The family of the victim migth sue and then the department will be in the legally "uncomfortable" position of having to justify a lot of things that are nomrally just taken for granted (for example, the right of police officers to hit people over the head - or even shoot them - for no good reason, etc.)

This is the same dynamic that is happening in tax law. You are a small fish - a minnow. The big fish out there - the multi-millionaires and even billionaires - can actually afford a phalanx of tax lawyers to make their legal case against the government. This means the government has to be very careful in how it allows tax law to be argued at all. This is why the law does not anywhere say "anyone who earns an income must pay taxes on it"... because this would open taxation itself to legal challenge. Since there is no law requiring it, it cannot be challenged. But it is a mistake to think that this means that it's all "just a trick" and all you have to do is dial this secret magic combination and you're free... if that were true, all the big fish would have long ago done that. But in order to avoid talking about why you have to pay taxes at all (in court), the government may choose to simply ignore your tax-resistance precisely because you are a small fish. This has nothing to do with the law or morality and solely to do with protecting the power to tax itself.

As with back-talking a cop, it's a dangerous game with very little upside and a very large downside. Remember that the police officer can get away with almost anything as long as he's smart... if you start back-talking him, he can say he felt "threatened" by your "demeanor" and this justified taking you down to the ground. Once on the ground, off-camera, he can then proceed to do pretty much anything short of shooting you and he has two ways to explain it. The first is to say you were resisting arrest (this is why he'll keep shouting "stop resisting! stop resisting!" for the camera even though you're not resisting) and the second is to say you were injured during the takedown. And even if he falters in his excuses because he's not been around long enough to fully understand how the system works, the worst that will happen to him is a write-up, which literally means nothing. It's like when your boss writes you up for being 5 minutes late to work. Big woop.

If you're playing the tax-resistance game and an IRS agent and/or tax court does take interest in you, they have the same kind of latitude. They can preemptively freeze all your assets including bank accounts and credit cards, garnish your entire paycheck indefniitely, put tax liens on any real estate or even automobiles you own, and they can physically intimidate you as well. Very little upside... lots of downside.

Clayton -