Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

[RandFan]

The defiance, moreover, must be a pre-
meditated act, understood to be illegal by the perpe-
trator, and understood to carry prescribed penalties.
Willingness to accept such penalties is a crucial part
of that sort of civil disobedience which hopes to stir
the public conscience, while eagerness to escape pun-
ishment is perfectly compatible with that sort of civil
disobedience which aims to pressure and frighten the
public. The defiance, finally, may be either nonviolent
or violent and still count as civil disobedience.

From Wiki:

Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence. It could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement. Civil disobedience has been used in nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's social welfare campaigns and campaigns to speed up independence from the British Empire), in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, and in the American Civil Rights Movement.

The problem with your definition is that most if not all forms of crimes are to some extent civil disobedience and to carry it to that extreme the term loses any and all meaning.

Further, violence tends to obviate moral authority again stripping the term of its meaning.

To be effective, as was the Civil Rights era and India's securing independence the civil disobedience must highlight the unjust law. Otherwise you are just being a terrorist.

 

[RandFan]

http://www.iiipublishing.com/nonv.htm

I read through this and I don't think it does what you think it does. It is largely opinion and offers a number of non-sequiturs. It does point out that the causes for these historical events isn't tied to any single movement, and I will agree, however it doesn't provide any evidence that the non-violent movements had zero or near zero effect or that violence was more effective. In fact it offers scant little besides narrative, rhetoric and opinion.

In any event, do you really think Brown is going to be able to do have any effect himself? I suggest you read your own link a little more closely. According to the author it was the weight of the federal government that effected change.

The leading role went to the National Guard, a group backed up by the Army, Navy, and Marines; if necessary by nuclear weapons.

And you think this guy with his weapons is going to do what Alabama and Mississippi couldn't?

Terorism today of the kind you suggest will do nothing to change people's perceptions. It didn't help Timothy McViegh.

I'm affraid Brown is SOL. He lives in a society that provides police, firemen, paramedics, roads, sidewalks, city planners, FEMA, HUD, etc.

So, we are back to your question.

If he wants he can try and change the system, move or fight the government but until he gets enough people on his side I'm affraid it's a lost cause. The system doesn't work when people can pick and choose which laws they will and will not obey and civil disobedience isn't a get out of jail free card. However, IF the civil disobedience is done without violence I think judges and juries should be willing to go easier on offenders.

 

[qayak]

The problem with your definition is that most if not all forms of crimes are to some extent civil disobedience and to carry it to that extreme the term loses any and all meaning.

Further, violence tends to obviate moral authority again stripping the term of its meaning.

To be effective, as was the Civil Rights era and India's securing independence the civil disobedience must highlight the unjust law. Otherwise you are just being a terrorist.

I have already stated that terrorist has no meaning. Civil disobedience only works if there is violence or the threat of violence. Nelson Mandella spent 27 years rotting in a prison. He did not affect any change. Change came about quickly once the militant wing of the ANC showed up. The same can be said about the Black Panthers and the civil rights movement. Non-violent civil disobedience simply results in more violence from the aggressor/oppressor.

I do not feel that violence in any way detracts from the morality of an action. When violence is required to stop violence, it is completely justified and a moral person will not hesitate to use it.

Your definition is an ideal that has never been realized and when practiced, has accomplished nothing.

 

[RandFan]

I consider terrorism to be a word so overused that it has little meaning left. Some people would brand MLK a terrorist and the Bus Boycott a terrorist act.

Sure but I seriously doubt that most reasonable people would buy such a proposition.

I think most reasonable people have a bright and clear line in their head as to terrorism. Trying to instill fear by murdering innocent people or directly and purposely putting into harms way law enforcement for one's own purpose is a big no-no.

Marching and protesting, if it is clear that the participants are unarmed and are not trying to harm others is NOT terrorism.

I think the Hispanic marches in LA this past summer that led to violence provide a very good example of what I'm talking about.

A group of individuals began throwing rocks. The police responded too aggressively and non-violent activists were hurt. Most people felt that arresting the rock throwers appropriate but firing rubber bullets and tear gas at non-violent activists was wrong.

 

[RandFan]

I have already stated that terrorist has no meaning.

(see above)

Civil disobedience only works if there is violence or the threat of violence.

Again, there is no evidence for this.

Nelson Mandella spent 27 years rotting in a prison. He did not affect any change. Change came about quickly once the militant wing of the ANC showed up. The same can be said about the Black Panthers and the civil rights movement. Non-violent civil disobedience simply results in more violence from the aggressor/oppressor.

Change came to South Africa when people and municipalites boycotted and divested of South Africa.

The violence had always been there.

I do not feel that violence in any way detracts from the morality of an action. When violence is required to stop violence, it is completely justified and a moral person will not hesitate to use it.

Of course it detracts from the morality.

Your definition is an ideal that has never been realized and when practiced, has accomplished nothing.

That is your opinion. I completly disagree.

If you honestly think Brown commiting violence is going to solve anything then I'm afraid you are deluded.

Timothy McVeigh's violence solved nothing. American's will not likely see folks like McVeigh and Brown as having any moral authority whatsoever.

 

[qayak]

In any event, do you really think Brown is going to be able to do have any effect himself? I suggest you read your own link a little more closely. According to the author it was the weight of the federal government that effected change.

Personally, I don't care if he has any effect. He is doing what he feels is right, and others have done recently, which is how one lets the government know they are not pleased which is how change begins. His actions will probably lead to nothing but it has to start somewhere.

If he wants he can try and change the system, move or fight the government but until he gets enough people on his side I'm affraid it's a lost cause. The system doesn't work when people can pick and choose which laws they will and will not obey and civil disobedience isn't a get out of jail free card. However, IF the civil disobedience is done without violence I think judges and juries should be willing to go easier on offenders.

The movement to end slavery was seen as a lost cause at first too. The important thing was, those people responsible for ending it weren't afraid like you are.

The system relies on people protesting laws that are unjust. That's what Jefferson said. Remember too, that Jefferson's words were in regard to a violent uprising which would be labelled as a terrorist act today. Terrorist act is a label applied by governments in order to justify whatever immoral action they are about to take.

You seem to think that because you are okay with paying income tax everyone else should be too. It is exactly the same as saying I am okay with slavery so you should be too.

People have to go with their own conscience. I might disagree with Brown but I think he has a right and an obligation to do what he is doing if he feels strongly about it. I also think that the very fact that Brown and others have gone to the extent of losing everything for their beliefs is an indicator that there maybe something to their complaint. Once again, as Jefferson said.

And finally, I think people who allow the government to vilify these people and label them terrorists are sadly mistaken.

 

[qayak]

Again, there is no evidence for this.

Only if you completely ignore history.

Of course it detracts from the morality.

No, not in the least.

If you honestly think Brown commiting violence is going to solve anything then I'm afraid you are deluded.

It will solve his need to express his opinion.

American's will not likely see folks like McVeigh and Brown as having any moral authority whatsoever.

Since when is moral right decided by majority? I think you will find that a lot of people in the US find what he did morally correct. The problem is to weed out the legitimate complaints from the non-legitimate ones. Instead, everyone who disagrees with a government is labelled a terrorist and their lives are ruined. So Brown is painted with the same brush as McVeigh. Of course, the people who do this feel they have taken the moral highground.

 

[RandFan]

Personally, I don't care if he has any effect. He is doing what he feels is right, and others have done recently, which is how one lets the government know they are not pleased which is how change begins. His actions will probably lead to nothing but it has to start somewhere.

And I have said over and over that he is free to let the government know how he feels. If he choses to sacrifice himself for his cause that's fine. However, civil disobedience is not a get out of jail free card.

The movement to end slavery was seen as a lost cause at first too. The important thing was, those people responsible for ending it weren't afraid like you are.

Spare me. This is not argument. This is rhetoric and it is beneath you. Further, there is not one thing that I've said to indicate that I'm scared of something. This is uncalled for.

The system relies on people protesting laws that are unjust.

Yes, peaceful and not taking the law into their own hands (unless there is a very serious problem). Paying for the benifits of living in America is not one that calls for violence.

Extreme responses require extreme motives. I don't like taxes. I don't like the way my government spends my money. However, the fact that my government has taxes is not per se unjust. Someone has to pay for the military, police, fire personnel, roads, sidewalks, etc., etc.

That's what Jefferson said. Remember too, that Jefferson's words were in regard to a violent uprising which would be labelled as a terrorist act today. Terrorist act is a label applied by governments in order to justify whatever immoral action they are about to take.

We've been over this several times. It's not going to change.

Jefferson was willing to accept responsibility and pay the price for his sedition. He understood that actions come with consequences. He believed the end result worthy of the sacrifice.

You seem to think that because you are okay with paying income tax everyone else should be too. It is exactly the same as saying I am okay with slavery so you should be too.

First, I find the notion that you would try and equate someone being forced to pay for the military, police, fire personnel, libraries and roads to be the equivalent of slavery offensive.

Second, I'm not thrilled with paying taxes especially when my government spends too much (I'm looking at you George Bush)

• I'm for people taking responsibility for their actions. I like personal responsibility.
• I like the rule of law.
• I like protests.
• I like Americans seeking redress.
• I like lawsuits.
• I like free speech.
• I support civil disobedience but those who engage must be willing to suffer the consequences.
• Paying taxes for the benefits of living in a society is not the same as slavery.

People have to go with their own conscience.

For the umpteenth time. I don't have a problem with people going with their conscience. I just want people to realize that their actions have consequences. That civil disobedience is not a get out of jail free card. If you want to protest for a higher moral then you better be prepared to suffer the consequences.

I might disagree with Brown but I think he has a right and an obligation to do what he is doing if he feels strongly about it.

And people who burn down abortion clinics?

I also think that the very fact that Brown and others have gone to the extent of losing everything for their beliefs is an indicator that there maybe something to their complaint.

And people who burn down abortion clinics? The KKK?

And finally, I think people who allow the government to vilify these people and label them terrorists are sadly mistaken.

Not my point. Not my argument.

However, if Brown causes the death of law enforcement I will happily label him an a-hole and a terrorist. And I will be right and most citizens of my society will agree with me.

• Brown enjoys a lot of benefits of society.
• He has reaped much from American social capital.
• That social capital was bought and paid for with the hard work and taxes of other law abiding citizens.
• Society only asks that Brown obey the laws and pay his dues.
• Brown's actions appear to be self serving.

We can argue whether or not government spends too much. It does.
We can argue whether or not Americans are over taxed.
What is unreasonable is whether or not someone can get out of taxes all together all the while endagering the lives of law enforcement. Hell no.

 

[qayak]

Sure but I seriously doubt that most reasonable people would buy such a proposition.

I think most reasonable people have a bright and clear line in their head as to terrorism. Trying to instill fear by murdering innocent people or directly and purposely putting into harms way law enforcement for one's own purpose is a big no-no.

Marching and protesting, if it is clear that the participants are unarmed and are not trying to harm others is NOT terrorism.

I think the Hispanic marches in LA this past summer that led to violence provide a very good example of what I'm talking about.

A group of individuals began throwing rocks. The police responded too aggressively and non-violent activists were hurt. Most people felt that arresting the rock throwers appropriate but firing rubber bullets and tear gas at non-violent activists was wrong.

And the march accomplished NOTHING! Most people don't even remember what it was about, they only remember the police kicking people's asses.

 

[RandFan]

The problem is to weed out the legitimate complaints from the non-legitimate ones.

? And this is done by whom?

Instead, everyone who disagrees with a government is labelled a terrorist and their lives are ruined. So Brown is painted with the same brush as McVeigh. Of course, the people who do this feel they have taken the moral highground.

If Brown uses violence to achieve his goal then I don't have a problem labeling him a terrorist. Until then he is just a tax cheat. A guy who has gotten where he is today due in large part to the investment of others. He wants a free ride. The guy is a jerk.

• Police are not free.
• Paramedics are not free.
• The military is not free.
• Public schools are not free.
• Libraries are not free.
• Public museums are not free.

America is successful in part because people invested in America. It took money. Brown has what he has, in part, because of American Social capital. Face it, if Brown had been born in a third world country it is very unlikely he would have gotten where he is.

I can't have sympathy for a man who spits in the face of all those who came before him and those alive today who pay to keep the country running and he just wants to take and give nothing back.

I hope like hell he ends up in jail.

 

[RandFan]

And the march accomplished NOTHING! Most people don't even remember what it was about, they only remember the police kicking people's asses.

The violence accomplished NOTHING! Public sentiment is running against the sentiment of the rock throwers and immigration reform just died in congress.

 

[qayak]

Spare me. This is not argument. This is rhetoric and it is beneath you. Further, there is not one thing that I've said to indicate that I'm scared of something.

It is not rhetoric, it is your argument placed on another situation that shows the flaws.

You stated that you were afraid that his actions would accomplish nothing.

Jefferson was willing to accept responsibility and pay the price for his sedition. He understood that actions come with consequences. He believed the end result worthy of the sacrifice.

I think you missed this part:

Shays' Rebellion--- a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786--- prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.

Jefferson airs his sentiments in a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, expressing justification for the series of protests led by Daniel Shay and a group of 1,200 farmers.

First, I find the notion that someone being forced to pay for the military, police, fire personnel, libraries and roads the equivalent of slavery offensive.

That's okay, I found your reductio absurdum relating Broen's action to murder and to Timothy McVeigh offensive. We're even.

[*]I'm for people taking responsibility for their actions. I like personal responsibility.
[*]I like the rule of law.
[*]I like protests.
[*]I like Americans seeking redress.
[*]I like lawsuits.
[*]I like free speech.
[*]I support civil disobedience but those who engage must be willing to suffer the consequences.
[*]Paying taxes for the benefits of living in a society is not the same as slavery.[/LIST]

But this isn't about what you like.

For the umpteenth time. I don't have a problem with people going with their conscience. I just want people to realize that their actions have consequences. That civil disobedience is not a get out of jail free card. If you want to protest for a higher moral then you better be prepared to suffer the consequences.

What makes you think Brown believes there are not consequences? Why do you think you have a monopoly on recognizing the blaringly obvious? I am sure that, facing the loss of everything he has, the seperation from his wife for five years and the prospect of spending that five years in jail, make him uniquely aware of the consequences of his actions.

And people who burn down abortion clinics? The KKK?

As many bad things as you can point to resulting from civil disobedience, I can point to an equal number of good things. Once again, it is the double edged sword of guaranteeing freedoms for individuals.

Not my point. Not my argument.

Actually, I thought it was blatantly obvious that it was my point. How could you mistake that for yours when i am the one that made it?

However, if Brown causes the death of law enforcement I will happily label him an a-hole and a terrorist. And I will be right and most citizens of my society will agree with me.

You would be no more right than anyone else. It would simply be your opinion based on the events as you see them. Others will vary.

[*]Society only asks that Brown obey the laws and pay his dues.

Society never asked anyone! It tells them. He had no options and no opportunity to simply say "No thanks."

 

[qayak]

Brown has what he has, in part, because of American Social capital. Face it, if Brown had been born in a third world country it is very unlikely he would have gotten where he is.

That's the point. Brown was simply born into a system he had no say in, no control over, one he doesn't agree with and that he can't get out of. It has nothing to do with what he has or doesn't have.

I can't have sympathy for a man who spits in the face of all those who came before him and those alive today who pay to keep the country running and he just wants to take and give nothing back.

I hope like hell he ends up in jail.

For someone who preaches the importance of non-violence, you sure have a lot of anger and violence in you!

 

[RandFan]

It is not rhetoric, it is your argument placed on another situation that shows the flaws.

Sorry, no.

You stated that you were afraid that his actions would accomplish nothing.

"Afraid" is a figure of speech. It does not mean that I'm scared.

Shays' Rebellion--- a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786--- prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.

No, I did not miss that at all.

But this isn't about what you like.

Actually it is.

What makes you think Brown believes there are not consequences? Why do you think you have a monopoly on recognizing the blaringly obvious? I am sure that, facing the loss of everything he has, the seperation from his wife for five years and the prospect of spending that five years in jail, make him uniquely aware of the consequences of his actions.

It's not Brown that I'm trying to convince, it's you.

As many bad things as you can point to resulting from civil disobedience, I can point to an equal number of good things. Once again, it is the double edged sword of guaranteeing freedoms for individuals.

That is a non answer. Do you think people should burn down aboriton clinics? Yes or no?
Do you think people who do burn down abortion clinics should be punished? Yes or no?

Actually, I thought it was blatantly obvious that it was my point.

Duh! I know it's your point. It's a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from anything that I have said.

You would be no more right than anyone else. It would simply be your opinion based on the events as you see them. Others will vary.

Most would agree and cheer his incarceration.

Society never asked anyone! It tells them.

Society only EXPECTS Brown to pay his dues in return for the benifits he has recieved.

He had no options and no opportunity to simply say "No thanks."

Is he bitching about living in a country with a relatively stable econcomy, stable government, roads, libraries, police, fire department?

Again, he wants to enjoy the benifits but wants those benifits for free.

The guy is a jerk. There's really no getting around that. Oh, and I noticed that you wouldn't take a stand but people who burn down abortion clinics are jerks. Members of the KKK are also jerks.

 

[RandFan]

That's the point. Brown was simply born into a system he had no say in, no control over, one he doesn't agree with and that he can't get out of.

BS, pure and utter BS.


He can vote.
He can protest.
He can seek redress.
He can file a law suits
He can write his political leaders.
He can commit civil disobedience.
HE CAN MOVE TO A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.
If poor and impovrished Mexicans can come to America then by hell Brown can haul his sorry rear end south of the border.

It has nothing to do with what he has or doesn't have.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what he has. He got it because others paid taxes to provide the Social Capital that helped him get what he has.

Of COURSE it has to do with what he has.

For someone who preaches the importance of non-violence, you sure have a lot of anger and violence in you!

"Violence"? And you know this how?

I'm frustrated that you can't see that this guy wants a free ride on the backs of others. I'm angry that this self serving jerk wants to get a free ride and is potentially putting law enforcement in harms way for his greed.

You are damn right I'm angry at that. I wouldn't resort to violence though. I just want Brown to go to jail.

 

[Alt+F4]

So what are the laws under which they have been convicted.

"The Browns were convicted in January of conspiring to defraud the government, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements. Elaine Brown, whose West Lebanon dental practice generated the couple's income, was also convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion and failure to withhold employment taxes."

Linky: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/.../REPOSITORY/704240314&SearchID=73283735473113

 

[Alt+F4]

These tax protester schemes almost always involve the protester hearing about how he doesn't have to pay taxes, and for only $5,000, the guy with the scheme will tell you how. Nobody has ever won one of these cases on the merits (I think one guy may have gotten off on some technicality), but plenty of people have lost and ended up having to pay the tax, plus staggering amounts of penalties and interest.

No one has ever successfully won a tax protestor case in the United States. So even if a person is 100% certain they are correct, they are still going to lose.

Now back to Browns. She was a successful dentist, they had a nice home in a nice community. It wasn't until 1997 that they stopped paying federal income taxes, and how has that worked out for them? Her practice was seized, they were arrested, spent quite a bit on lawyers and have spent the last six months as virtual prisoners in their own home with the sincere belief that their situtation is going to turn into "another Waco".

And what is it all over? Money. Like every other American I don't like paying taxes and I often don't like the way the government spends my money. However I can think of many bigger injustices to fight against.

The Brown's have the right to fight against whatever they feel is injustice. But to sacrifice your freedom and possibly your life just so you can have more money is just crazy in my opinion.

 

[RandFan]

The Brown's have the right to fight against whatever they feel is injustice. But to sacrifice your freedom and possibly your life just so you can have more money is just crazy in my opinion.

In the case of the Brown's I would have to say it's suicidal stupidity.

 

[gnome]

But what constitutes imprisonment? If I'm stuck on in traffic for several hours because someone is blocking traffic, is that imprisonment?

Not unless they were also blocking your car door.

What is force? Even is someone goes limp, they are still exerting a force.

In the most abstract sense, I would define the unlawful component as physically coercing another person's actions/movements, or causing harm to their person.

I'm not saying that trying to define violence doesn't bring up questions. What I am saying is that these questions have answers that a reasonable person would generally agree with.

 

[gnome]

I would say that if someone wishes to make the argument that non-violent civil disobedience will not resolve an issue, that they have actually moved on to advocating rebellion. Truly, in some cases this is justified, but the criteria most would accept are far more stringent than the justification for civil disobedience.