You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A.G.S. - Anarchist Guilt Syndrome: Why You May be Struggling, and What You Can Do About it.
What is the purpose of this, what will it prove? that I will walk out unmolested? and what then, you can go and make all kinds of declarations in public that aren't threatening, more than anything people will roll their eyes and ignore you. What I said is NOT to go into their jurisdiction and NOT to create controversy, read it again.
It will prove that you can stand behind all this talk. Thousands of people who have been killed or put in cages would seem to bear convincing witness against the case you are trying to make.
This isn't "talk", these are facts. Facts cannot be debated, they remain firmly established regardless of the assertions and suppositions contrary to this.
Many people HAVE done that for example Judge Anna, she has stood up and said "These don't apply to me" and hasn't paid taxes and has been vocal about it since 99. There's an enormous movement which is waking up to the truth of "government", and that's not "taxation is theft".
I have outlined why and how to approach the situation and you keep trying to shove me into conflict and controversy without even an apropos to my reasoning or method, so let me challenge your assertion: did any of those people establish their domicile on the land, did they reflag their vessles to be at peace, did they demonstrate or shown to approach the situation from a position of resolution and peace, did those thousands know what they were getting themselves in when they contracted with this entity? There's multiple reasons why they were taken advantage of, caveat emptor, and that doesn't make what I said untrue.
For standing behind the talk you would actually have to fucking listen and not make me repeat the same points ad naseum, it's rude.
Right. So walk the walk man. If you are going to pontificate, be ready to also step down from the podium and do. Otherwise, yes, it is just talk. And dangerous advice (if no warning is given of potential consequence) to those who may believe you.
Right so don't address anything I have said but keep shoving me into "walk the talk". When you assert that taxes are mandatory the onus of proof sits with you, the claimant. When you further assert that thousands of people went to jail or were murdered because somehow they tried to prove what I am discussing, the onus of proof remains with you once more.
You want me to prove that Taxes don't apply to me, how do I prove a negative? By making a declaration at the IRS HQ, great, and what will that prove besides that I will walk out unmolested and even if I don't and I get arrested for disturbing the peace or "suspicious behavior" even, what will that prove, that Taxes are Mandatory? Walk the talk is something that you ought to consider, besides the claims that my advice is dangerous because I didn't give warning of "potential consequences" which is spurious as I don't believe you have addressed or entertained my "advice" one bit, instead you decided that the demonstration for taxation being mandatory is that ridiculous "walk the talk" contrary to my advice of not being in controversy or bringing controversy onto yourself, and to make declaration of peace, not of "These taxes don't apply with me and I dare you to arrest me" idiocy you condone.
I already know taxes are not “voluntary” as you say, and have evidence. I see concrete evidence for your claims. The issue is that we define “voluntary” differently. Through some giant word salad, you are telling me that technically it is “voluntary.” Through hundreds of actual people getting put in cages for not paying, I am telling you it is not. My definition of “voluntary” is not theoretical.
No word salad at all, its all Contract Law and Caveat Emptor. My definition of voluntary is not "theoretical" either, and you have no chance at demonstrating that people are forced or that it's involuntary, and you KNOWING otherwise won't change the facts that this is all based on contract law and you break a contract you pay, period, or contracts, promises and obligations won't mean anything. You are liable for paying taxes if you are working for the FED or are a dependent, if you are a citizen you MIGHT get away without paying taxes if you approach the situation by declaring that you're seeking information that will substantiate taxation as it applies to you, and you declare that to the people who are asking for taxes, so the tax assessor and you do it by correspondence and recording everything while using the Freedom of Information Act request to bind the servant's hands, but then again taxes probably apply to citizen depending on the State, so if you make "income" or use the Social Security Number, then you bet your ass they are entitled to their share and it's all LAWFUL, not only legal, as in maxims of law which hold REASON and LOGIC as the underlying principle.
If you are earnest at discussing these issues you'd be asking questions, and not slinging around accusations of NONSENSE, what word salad?
Do I have to break down the idiotic reasoning of "Declare you don't have to pay taxes in the IRS offices" after I have said that you better not enter into controversy and that even if I were to do that it certainly WON'T demonstrate anything about the issue of taxes being voluntary. You seem to keep up the pretense that all those people were forced to pay taxes, they refused and were murdered or kidnapped. I say that that's ONLY an interpretation and not actually what happened, I see the flaw of the first couple you gave me, by their performative surrender of their Sovereignty and Peace by walking into their court and saying Yes to their nom de guerre, yes to their name of war.
This is very deep and it would flourish into an intersting discussion but then you'd have to approach this SENSIBLY (instead of persisting to repeat the same assertions that cannot be backed up or demonstrated concretely at all) and give me some serious consideration and posit whatever question you have for what doesn't make sense or what you don't understand or know about.
Even people that don’t “walk into court” or make a show or not paying get kidnapped by the state. Do you disagree?
Lets stop beating around the bush though because I don't see this as genuine discussion about the nature of the state or the lawfulness and legality of taxation and lets explore then "why" they got kidnapped do you think? Simply because that's what the state does (you've been tirelessly trying to establish the lawlessness of the state and it's impunity as the underlying premise)?