Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

[qayak]

Which is why I don't get why more don't consider McVeigh as the greatest patriot in modern history. If the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots and an insurrection is good now and then, he would seem to be a real American hero.

Perhaps his cause wasn't right.

 

[qayak]

Why? You are for fighting laws you do not agree with, why are you limiting what kinds of laws are right to fight for?

Actually, you know what? You are 100% correct. It is perfectly okay to fight against those laws. The anti-civil rights people had the right to fight against equal rights. Just because the cause is immoral doesn't mean someone should be prevented from fighting for it.

Hopefully, they will not win the day.

 

[qayak]

Myquestion was not how terrorism has no meaning, but how CD has meaning but terrorism doesn't. CD is used to refer to anything from burning draft cards to burning down buildings.

Because civil disobedience encompasses all those things while terrorism does not encompass all the things people use it for. Brown is not a terrorist. The WTC attackers were.

 

[RandFan]

It would be if we could actually keep it for acts of terrorism.

No, but you are entitled to an opinion. You haven't given anyone a reason for anyone to agree with you but that's fine.

What do you call people who bomb bridges, roads, railways, pipelines, oil refineries, etc.?

Depends on the reason the bridge, road, railway, pipeline or refinery was bombed.

1. If the primary purpose is a battlefield tactic targeted toward personnel or targets that are military in nature then it wouldn't be terrorism. Bombing a bridge so that an army can't advance or retreat would not be considered terrorism by most reasonable people even if the act did terrorize the populace.
2. If the primary target is civilian with the intent to instill terror in the general populace then that would be terrorism.

It is actually quite simple and actually easy to understand the term quite well. I doubt many people would find any controversy in attempting to define the word. You are simply asserting something without cause. This isn't to say the word is never misused or that there are many, many definitions of terrorism. The point is that misuse or multiple definitions doesn't prove misunderstanding. That's the hurtle you've got to overcome. Asserting a claim doesn't make the claim true.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, you know what? You are 100% correct. It is perfectly okay to fight against those laws. The anti-civil rights people had the right to fight against equal rights. Just because the cause is immoral doesn't mean someone should be prevented from fighting for it.

I've asked this of you before, who is the arbiter of what is and is not moral?

Hopefully, they will not win the day.

Yes, but this raises another important question, if people break the law for their cause should they be punished?

1. *If someone kills an abortion doctor to keep unborn children from being murdered should they be punished?
2. If someone burns down an abortion clinic because they were following their conscious should they be punished?
3. If someone kills the president in an attempt to overthrow the government because the perpetrator believes that the President has committed war crimes should they be punished?
4. If an animal rights activist destroys a lab that is used for animal testing should that person be punished?

*I don't believe that abortion is murder.

 

[qayak]

No, but you are entitled to an opinion. You haven't given anyone a reason for anyone to agree with you but that's fine.

Depends on the reason the bridge, road, railway, pipeline or refinery was bombed.

1. If the primary purpose is a battlefield tactic targeted toward personnel or targets that are military in nature then it wouldn't be terrorism. Bombing a bridge so that an army can't advance or retreat would not be considered terrorism by most reasonable people even if the act did terrorize the populace.
2. If the primary target is civilian with the intent to instill terror in the general populace then that would be terrorism.

Yahtzee!! So, The Resistance in WWII were not terrorists but the people doing the same in Iraq are?

It is actually quite simple and actually easy to understand the term quite well. I doubt many people would find any controversy in attempting to define the word. You are simply asserting something without cause. This isn't to say the word is never misused or that there are many, many definitions of terrorism. The point is that misuse or multiple definitions doesn't prove misunderstanding. That's the hurtle you've got to overcome. Asserting a claim doesn't make the claim true.

What do I have to overcome? I use the word correctly and reject it when others don't.

The fact is, the terrorism label is often used to end discussions. No one wants to be seen as supporting terrorism but then a lot of these acts aren't terrorism. Everything done to us is a terrorist act but what we do to others is for freedom.

An act of terrorism can still fall under the banner of civil disobedience.

 

[Art Vandelay]

For your reference, again. Criminal penalties, as opposed to civil ones, are highlighted:

So, what are the laws saying people have to pay taxes, and what do they say?

Two comments here:
1. Do you know what a run-on sentence is?
2. If you don't think the law exists, then don't pay your taxes, go for it!

1. Yes. Do you?
2. Is that supposed to be an arugment?

But it is not the debts that are criminal, it is the actions around them. So in this case it would mean there is no penalty for tax evasion but making structured transactions to avoid notice would be illegal.

And it's not the unpaid taxes, but the failure to pay the tax, which is criminal.

It would be if we could actually keep it for acts of terrorism.

What do you call people who bomb bridges, roads, railways, pipelines, oil refineries, etc.?

Sabateurs.

Because civil disobedience encompasses all those things while terrorism does not encompass all the things people use it for. Brown is not a terrorist. The WTC attackers were.

Huh? Are you saying that terrorist actually does have a precise meaning, but people use it in an imprecise manner?

 

[Skibum]

Yahtzee!! So, The Resistance in WWII were not terrorists but the people doing the same in Iraq are?

Depends.

I would consider the "freedom fighters" actions of setting off IEDs in public markets, outside of mosques, kidnapping and murdering civilians etc, to be terrorist acts.

I consider attacking US troops to be guerilla warfare.

 

[qayak]

I've asked this of you before, who is the arbiter of what is and is not moral?

Obviously, each person must decide for themselves. Isn't that the whole point? "Patriots ask questions."

Yes, but this raises another important question, if people break the law for their cause should they be punished?

That would depend. Is their cause just? Then they shouldn't be. If not, they should. (With a large grey area in between as Jefferson noted.)

And that is, in the end, what really matters: Is their cause just? Society as a whole decides and for many issues it is cut and dried but for others, things aren't quite so clear. But remember, these things have to be tested all the time, things change. Slavery was okay in the 1800's but not in 2000. Somewhere between those times, things changed and the balance shifted.

We can assume that that will happen with almost everything so we shouldn't be labelling dissenters as terrorists. They give us an opportunity to re-examine things from time to time.

However, whether they should be punished is mostly irrelevent. They will be.

 

[RandFan]

I don't have all the details, but it's not clear to me that that really qualifies as non-violent. Once someone starts throwing rocks, people have an obligation to either stop them or get out of the way of the police so they can arrest the rock throwers. Acting as a human shield constitutes violence.

The group was by and large peaceful and on the lawn. Parents were pushing children in strolers. Vendors were selling food and drinks. Reporters were conducting interviews.

The event was intended to be non-violent and they had instructions to stay on the lawn. A line of police were present to ensure that protestors did not move onto the street.

A very small group moved out onto the street and started throwing rocks at the police whose job it was to keep the group on the lawn.

Instead of focusing on the group of rock throwers (IIRC none were arrested) the police in riot gear began to move at a very quick pace onto the lawn and advance threw the crowd overtaking many and firing rubber bullets at anyone who was unable to stay in front of the police. This included food vendors, reporters, and parents pushing strollers oblivious to the fact that any rocks were even thrown or that an order to disperse was given.

 

[qayak]

Depends.

I would consider the "freedom fighters" actions of setting off IEDs in public markets, outside of mosques, kidnapping and murdering civilians etc, to be terrorist acts.

I consider attacking US troops to be guerilla warfare.

Yes, and then there is the grey area where the target is someone in a mosque, or pubic market, who is lending support to your enemy.

And having said this, someone here will no doubt claim that I am not supporting the troops!

 

[RandFan]

Yahtzee!! So, The Resistance in WWII were not terrorists but the people doing the same in Iraq are?

? Huh?

What do I have to overcome? I use the word correctly and reject it when others don't.

Your proposition: The word tererorism has no meaning. The only premise you offer is that it has been overused. Given your premise it doesn't establish your proposition. That said I'm not even sure about your premise.

The fact is, the terrorism label is often used to end discussions.

The fact is, this is just a claim by you. You assume it, then assert it. This is sophistry.

 

[RandFan]

Obviously, each person must decide for themselves. Isn't that the whole point? "Patriots ask questions."

Then you should resatate your point that "just because it is believed that a cause is immoral..."

That would depend. Is their cause just?

Are you kidding? Around and arround we go....

I hate to ask this question, but... who is the arbiter of what is just?

Then they shouldn't be. If not, they should. (With a large grey area in between as Jefferson noted.)

This tells us absolutely nothing.

You are equivicating.

All causes are just to someone.
All causes are immoral to someone else.

Again, you have told us nothing.

And that is, in the end, what really matters: Is their cause just?

And in the end this is meaningless. The cause of the founders of America was "just" to the founders. It was unjust to the crown and those loyal to the crown.

Society as a whole decides and for many issues it is cut and dried but for others, things aren't quite so clear. But remember, these things have to be tested all the time, things change. Slavery was okay in the 1800's but not in 2000. Somewhere between those times, things changed and the balance shifted.

Fine, but after Mr. Brown has his little test I propose we throw his butt in jail.
After the animal rights activists have their little test I propose we throw their butts in jail.

Look, I understand your point, I really, really do. However there is a point where the collective moral consciounce moves beyond certain quandries.

• Murder really isn't a dillema anymore.
• Rape really isn't a dillema anymore.
• Extortion, theft, blackmail, these are not dillemas anymore.

Now, we understand greed (see Brown). We understand that societies don't run on happiness and smiles. Therefore, people who refuse to pay their taxes and act like morons (see Brown) really should go to jail. There's no need for hand wringing. If you want that's fine but it's reasonably speaking, it's a waste of time.

We can assume that that will happen with almost everything so we shouldn't be labelling dissenters as terrorists. They give us an opportunity to re-examine things from time to time.

Yes, murderers give us the great opportunity to re-examine murder and people who don't bathe give us a great opportunity to re-examine hygine...

...then again, maybe something don't really need to be re-examined.

However, whether they should be punished is mostly irrelevent. They will be.

That's all I ask.

 

[qayak]

And in the end this is meaningless. The cause of the founders of America was "just" to the founders. It was unjust to the crown and those loyal to the crown.

Absolutely correct. I would even take it one step further and say that it was just to a majority of the colonists and unjust to a majority of England. After all, weren't the collonists just trying to avoid paying their taxes?

 

[qayak]

You are equivicating.

Actually, I am not. You are looking for a black or white answer and there is none. Each issue must be judged by each individual on its merits and the individual must come to their own conclusion on what is moral or just because they are the one that has to live with their decision and action.

All causes are just to someone.
All causes are immoral to someone else

So what? Even if this is true, what does it matter to the discussion. You think that there must be a concensus? If there were, there would be no need for violent or non-violent civil disobedience, rebellions or civil wars.

Does it matter that a single murderer thinks it is just to kill others? What about the other 99.9999999% of the people, don't you think they get a say if they choose?

Besides, it isn't the people with the made up minds that decide the issue. It is the people who are undecided that shift the balance. Often it is a violent act that makes them take notice and examine the issues.

Think about when abortion doctors were killed or clinics bombed as you so often point out. Didn't these acts backfire on the perpetrators? Didn't it make people who were staying relatively neutral in the debate take a stand.

 

[qayak]

And in the end this is meaningless. The cause of the founders of America was "just" to the founders. It was unjust to the crown and those loyal to the crown.

And this is meaningless. The Founders and the Crown of the day are all dead and don't care. I haven't heard Queen Elizabeth II complain about the injustice of it and seeing as how Britain and the US are such close allies, I would say it has pretty much been agreed that the actions were completely just.

Lucky for us non-violent civil disobedience is the only way for change to happen. Otherwise, there may have been a rebellion and lots of people might have died.

 

[qayak]

Yes, murderers give us the great opportunity to re-examine murder and people who don't bathe give us a great opportunity to re-examine hygine...

...then again, maybe something don't really need to be re-examined.

Actually, murder is constantly being re-examined and so is hygiene. Everytime science finds something new pertaining to them, they are re-examined. Just think, a century ago, many people thought bathing caused them to become ill.

I doubt there is anything that doesn't need a good examination from time to time. Especially when it affects the lives of so many, like laws do.

 

[robinson]

Hmm...

 

[BPSCG]

So, what are the laws saying people have to pay taxes, and what do they say?

Here you go.

The actual words to the effect that "if you are an individual and your income is under x, you have to pay..." are here.

 

[The Painter]

How many people would not pay a damned penny? They'd spend their entire paychecks as soon as they got it, just as they do today, whether they were waiting tables for $4.00/hour plus tips or re-routing people's hearts for $5,000 a pop. Then when April 15 rolled around, they'd shrug and say, "I can't afford to pay that..."

If the payroll withholding tax, (which is your income tax being taken a little at a time), were done away with and you had to pay your tax in one lump sum, taxes would not be paid by a majority of the people.

"Then when April 15 rolled around, they'd shrug and say, "I can't afford to pay that...""

Here you go.

The actual words to the effect that "if you are an individual and your income is under x, you have to pay..." are here.

Well, look how clear and easy the tax codes are. Does anyone think this is a fair system? Can anyone figure out this system? Is the system set up to totally confuse you so you just give up and pay what they tell you to pay?