RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> From: "X" <xasper8d@lobo.net>
> Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:22:00 -0700

> So you are one of those people that truly believes you can insult someone in
> public, then say, "I was responding to you" and cap it off with "it's my
> opinion" ?  You have formed an opinion about me already?  And that opinion
> includes the fact that I want other people to carry my weight?  How absurd
> you are, little man!

I simply based it on your apparent motivations based on your statements.

> If I had thought you were serious about your article, I would have pointed
> out the huge flaws in your theory.  I gave you credit for well-thought
> sarcasm when apparently it was neither.

I'm waiting...


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
            Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
            the right answers.

                                        Scully (X-Files)

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, everyone, for this crap coming up, but JIM CHOATE wants you all to
see it...

Jim,

You keep reposting this to the cpunx list, and I keep trying to discuss it
with you in private.

X says:
~> > If I had thought you were serious about your article, I would
~> have pointed
~> > out the huge flaws in your theory.  I gave you credit for well-thought
~> > sarcasm when apparently it was neither.
~>
And Jim's witty response was:
~> I'm waiting...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of your system was a two-tiered
payment schedule where Group A could be called TaxPayers and Group B could
be called NON-Payers.  Right?

And basically, Group A would get all of the benefits that a fully paid
membership would entail, right?  Secondly, Group B would "not pay taxes" and
would NOT be entitled to any benefits save for on a pay-as-you-go type
arrangement.  Right?

What USGov't services do you include in your proposal?  Let's list a few,
(feel free to jump in with some more.)
U.S. Mail services
Common defense
Air traffic controlling
roadways and interstates
Food and Drug Administration approvals
Federally mandated minimum wage
automobile safety standards

Is your tax progressive or regressive?

If I'm right so far (which I may or may not be) then we have to talk about
your definition of "paying taxes."  Does a single woman raising five kids
and paying a small mortgage making  $14,200 per year pay taxes?  No,
unfortunately for her, she doesn't.  I guess that puts her smack into GROUP
B!  Well, that's simple enough!  We'll deny her the creature comforts of the
list above until she chips in her proportionate cost, right?  When that
libertarian bitch tries to send mail, we'll charge her more!  WHen she gets
on the freeway, we'll toll her!  When she buys a medicine for her snot-nosed
urchin, we'll give her the stuff that ain't been FDA approved, right?
RIGHT!  And, if ever we should need to attack another country (or defend
ours, as you pointed out) SHE'LL happily volunteer to serve (as I remember
your post) in order to protect her TAX-FREE STATUS.

As you said to me, she's probably just looking for someone to shoulder her
part of the load, right?

You said it would be easy to implement, right?  I don't see that it would be
easy at all.

Once again, I apologize for the OFF TOPIC nature of this, but MR. COHATE
(freudian slip, or merely coincidence?  you be the judge!) insisted on
duking this out in public.

X

You know, guys, it doesn't matter what sort of tax system is set up, if it
doesn't begin with one very fundamentally, essential, crucial, important point:
respect for the sovereignty of the individual.   This means respect for their
individual agreement, their informed consent, to any arrangement to be taken up
by them.

If, at any point in time - either before, during, or after a plan for obtaining
moneys from citizen-units is instigated - it loses sight of the purpose for
setting up the whole thing, then it's worthless anyway.  If it doesn't support
the highest ideal of humanity - unit by unit, individual by individual, human
beings qua their separate existence  - then it is not serving their purposes,
but only the purpose of those who identify themselves as the State: employees of
the State, leaders of the State, keepers of the State, goalies of the State,
wards of the State, etc.

If "members" are not extended the courtesy due to strangers, where one would
normally inquire - "would you like to join us?" or "would you like to combine
efforts with us in this endeavor to do ourselves a good" or "would you agree to
support this organization in this manner?"; if instead their existence is taken
for granted and their efforts treated as minor elements in the larger scheme of
more important things, if their separate opinions are rolled up into a combined
average, then what does it matter the benefits?   What does it matter, the
details?

If there is no basic comprehension of respect, no display of respect, no
provision in their Codes (legal codes, tax codes, etc.) for the methods of
respectfulness -  then where is the goodness in the rest of it, once you've lost
your place in your hierarchy of values?   People will then be operating in an
mindless atmosphere of unconsciousness, an atmosphere lacking an appreciation
for oneself as a unique creature, self-possessed and having their own reasons
and purpose for living.   Gradually they will lose the consciousness of
themselves as being something other than a "member" of a collective, an identity
not dependent upon recognition from the State, upon sanction from The Crowd for
permission to move based on the independent exercise of judgement- be it to move
about freely, or consume the  chemicals of the Universe, or think unofficial
thoughts, whatever.

They could become like the "bird in a guilded cage" - having all the benefits of
personal comfort, but without the ability or permission to pursue goals beyond
what is tolerated within the boundaries of the Group Consciousness (can you say
B-o-r-g), so that they may have more and more of the basic physical
requirements, but less and less of themselves - of their own authority, of their
own self-esteem, an esteem not pre-measured or pre-determined by the PC police,
that constant reference in the back of their mind reminding them of the limits
of their approved parameters.

Nothing - no plan, no organization, no purpose, no method, no clever, cheaper,
faster, more practical scheme - is worth supporting, if it degrades the concept,
the idea, the reality, of respect for the boundaries of our separate existence.
If it denies the recognition of self-ownership, if it ignores it, if it fails to
account for it in word or deal with it in action, then eventually it will
transgress these boundaries with impunity and an air of overbearing
self-righteousness, and you will lose what is most important of all.    You
could "gain the world" (of tax-extorted benefits), but lose your Self.    (of
course some people don't propose to have one, and so wouldn't miss it or
complain over its absence)


   ..
Blanc