Re: Taxing Churches for their views? Bad idea. (fwd)

Jim Burnes wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> >   Churches, like governments, corporations, or any other organized
> > entity, have some wonderful people in them, doing wonderful things.
> > The problem, as always, is what our founding fathers realized--these
> > types of organizations/structures tend to grow and attain power which
> > is then used for the purpose of self-sustained growth (survival).
> >   Humanity tends to evolve, while organized humanity tends to de-volve.
> > Biped humans, walking upright, form organizations which move toward
> > becoming quadrapeds dragging large clubs.

> Ha!  This is pretty interesting.  Rather than the typical cypherpunk
> approach of eliminating such inefficient and corrupting methods as
> income taxation and tax exemption we are playing by their game.

  Taxation and exemptions are, conceptually, no different than a
tribal agreement that those who bring home the deer will share
with those who guard the campsite, and that the shaman who keeps
the evil spirits at bay has to do neither.
  When one strips the semantics from various cypherpunks posts, 
there is usually an underlying agreement that there should be
no 'free rides' and no 'oppressive burdens.' <-- generality>

> The whole of HG Wells warning to society was that by systematically
> altering the language, you alter the things that can be discussed.

  I believe that half of the disagreements on the cypherpunks list,
and the vast majority of disagreements in the world in general, are
the result of disputes over semantics, rather than beliefs.
 
> rather than bitch and moan about how the Churches are exempt, why
> not rejoice in the fact that at least the churches are free from
> taxation.  We are part of the way there.

  Revolutionary idea! Instead of calling for Churches to be subject
to the same oppressive taxation as the rest of us, call for the rest
of us to be given the same exemptions as Churches.
  I vote Jim Burnes the honorary title of 'CypherPunks Chief Taxation
Spokesperson' (Norman Vincent Peale Chapter).

> Or start your own church.  ;-)

  I agree.

TruthPastor
"CypherPunks Church of One"
(All donations declared by myself to be tax deductible--check with the
 authorities in *your* jail cell (*after* sending me money) as to their
 views in this regard.)

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Anonymous wrote:

> Jim Burnes wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> > >   Churches, like governments, corporations, or any other organized
> > > entity, have some wonderful people in them, doing wonderful things.
> > > The problem, as always, is what our founding fathers realized--these
> > > types of organizations/structures tend to grow and attain power which
> > > is then used for the purpose of self-sustained growth (survival).
> > >   Humanity tends to evolve, while organized humanity tends to de-volve.
> > > Biped humans, walking upright, form organizations which move toward
> > > becoming quadrapeds dragging large clubs.
> 
> > Ha!  This is pretty interesting.  Rather than the typical cypherpunk
> > approach of eliminating such inefficient and corrupting methods as
> > income taxation and tax exemption we are playing by their game.
> 
>   Taxation and exemptions are, conceptually, no different than a
> tribal agreement that those who bring home the deer will share
> with those who guard the campsite, and that the shaman who keeps
> the evil spirits at bay has to do neither.
>   When one strips the semantics from various cypherpunks posts, 
> there is usually an underlying agreement that there should be
> no 'free rides' and no 'oppressive burdens.' <-- generality>
>

Thank someones god/shaman/whatever that we don't live in a tribal
society.  The whole reason money was invented was so that we could
"buy" the services we needed.  The invention of the firearm was so
that anyone could protect the campsite.

Whenever tribes go beyond a few hundred/thousand members barter
becomes hopelessly inefficient and pretty shells/rocks/silver/gold
becomes the next best thing.  This becomes a civilization.  Hopefully
its a limited constitutional representative democracy.  Thats democracy
in the old sense of republic, not in the new sense which is newspeak for
"socialism".

Unfortunately the essense of money is not a subject that is taught
in grade schools, high schools or university economics courses for
that matter.  Prices are information that indicate demand/supply
and money is the packetized communication medium of free association.
Anyone know of any monetary theories based on communication theory?

Does income-side taxation then constitute a limitation on free
association?  Does it limit the people who you could cooperate
with to build a car?  Negotiate a deal?  Rent a hall so that you could
discuss politics?

Isnt that a breech of the 1st amendment?  Freedom of assembly?

Is income taxation an a-priori limitation on free speech and association?

Wow.  I've got to either lay off the caffiene or (tm) that theory.

>  
> > rather than bitch and moan about how the Churches are exempt, why
> > not rejoice in the fact that at least the churches are free from
> > taxation.  We are part of the way there.
> 
>   Revolutionary idea! Instead of calling for Churches to be subject
> to the same oppressive taxation as the rest of us, call for the rest
> of us to be given the same exemptions as Churches.
>   I vote Jim Burnes the honorary title of 'CypherPunks Chief Taxation
> Spokesperson' (Norman Vincent Peale Chapter).
> 
> > Or start your own church.  ;-)
> 
>   I agree.
> 

Disclaimer:

All of the above discussion has been strictly theoretical.  Any
imputed relation to Jim Burnes' theories and ideas are strictly
coincidental.

Even if this were really coming from Jim Burnes, I'm sure he would
not want to be the Chief Taxation Spokesman^h^h^hperson.

Jim Burnes

---
FWIP: Fun With Internet Pseudonyms
FWIF: Fun With Internet Forgery

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Anonymous wrote:

> Jim Burnes wrote:
> > The whole of HG Wells warning to society was that by systematically
> > altering the language, you alter the things that can be discussed.
> 

Woops.  I'm mixing up my ontological icons.  Obviously I meant to
say "George Orwell".  Probably confused the two because they both
started out being semi-socialists.  HG Wells being a member of
the Rhodes Roundtable thought it would promote social justice.
Later he came to the conclusion that they just wanted to control
the world like any power-mad group that knows whats best for us.

Orwell fought in the Spanish civil war for the socialists and
against the fascists.  

Later, he worked as a propagandist for the British ministry of truth
during WWII -- eventually seeing his folly and writing 1984.

----

this moment in history brought to you by:

The Hitler^h^h^h^hstory Channel
All Hitler^h^h^h^hstory, All the Time

we now bring you back to your regularly scheduled spam.

jvb