Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

[gnome]

The right to bear arms against an unjust government would also be known as an armed rebellion which is against the law. As the right is guaranteed in the Constitution, the Constitution says that it is okay to break the law at times.

This is not correct. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms... however I don't believe anywhere it allows this for the purpose of rebellion, however unjust the government is.

You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, that allows for rebellion against an unjust government (and perhaps still has some legal force?)

Few here would argue that an armed rebellion against a sufficiently unjust government is justified. But it's not provided for in law.

As for the victors deciding what is just... that is a distortion of the question. The fact that the winner of a conflict can distort the facts so that "history" regards them as justified does not answer the ethical question of what is justified.

 

[sackett]

...The fact that the winner of a conflict can distort the facts so that "history" regards them as justified does not answer the ethical question of what is justified.

A side note:

How often do the victors actually succeed in writing history? Unless they completely annihilate the losers, the other side of the story eventually comes out.

Even non-literate peoples somehow seem to get their story into the books. Hell, even tax protestors, surely some of the numbest skulls in the business, have a chance to tell their side.

 

[Darat]

Yeah but that eventually can be a long, long time - look at Julius Cesar's rewriting of history!

 

[qayak]

BTW, you sure love the use of that eyeroll icon!

Well, for a long time I used a lot but then I thought people might think I was just too damn happy so I didn't use anything. Then I noticed how annoyed I got when Randfan used on me so I figured I would adopt that for awhile. Seems to be working and getting pretty much the response I had to it.

I would like to use or more but not too much shocks me anymore which means is out of the question.

These days seems to reflect my headspace more and more. That'll happen when your three grown children all move back in within a week and one of them brings his girlfriend. Now one would think I would be justified using more but I spent a lot of years conditioning myself to control my anger. So, when they lay around the house all day and then say they couldn't find a job, I just say " but you know your rent is due in 5 days and if it isn't in my hand on that day, you are out of here no matter how much I love you?" Which gets a lot of from them.

and is how I feel after having lived on my own for awhile and having them return.

still reflects my general outlook on life so I think I will be okay!

 

[RandFan]

So then you would agree that the US during world war two was a terrorist state, as it was using the destruction of cities to break the will of a nation.

A "terrorist state"? At best this is a controversial term with little meaning but let's use it anyway.

America was involved in a war. America used professional soldiers. By and large America followed the Geneva Convention. It would seem reasonable that to qualify as a "terrorist state" a country would have to seek terrorism as it's primary or sole means of acheiving an objetive. This does not fit the US during WWII.

I don't think such a conclusion of America being a terrorist state would follow for most reasonable people.

 

[RandFan]

The point was, you said that if I break the law I should expect to go to prison. I simply stated that this was a fallacy as many people break the law and don't go to prison.

The expectation was based on a statistical likelyhood of someone in a specific circumstance. Like murder, rape or robbery. If it is less likely than more that you won't go to jail for such offenses then I stand corrected.

 

[RandFan]

The right to bear arms against an unjust government would also be known as an armed rebellion which is against the law. As the right is guaranteed in the Constitution, the Constitution says that it is okay to break the law at times.

I thank you better go back and read that again sparky. Security of a free state is not per se a call for sedition and open rebellion. If you honestly think you can take up arms against the US Government and then fall back on the 2nd Amendment then you are seriously deluded.

No kidding, Dick Tracy! How much of the discussion that went into the drafting of the Constitution, made it in?

It's your claim regarding the Constitution.

Neither is agreeing with it.

I'm not the one suggesting how we should treat a-holes like Brown. He doesn't deserve respect. He should go to jail. That's my only point. I bitch and moan about my government. I bitch and moan about taxes. I vote. I speak out.

Never met the man, wouldn't know.

Not a difficult call. He want's something for nothing and he is willing to put other people in harms way for his greed. Major a-hole.

 

[RandFan]

No it doesn't.

Actually it does.

Yeah, let's pretend people don't vote for the party that most benefits THEM. Let's pretend that the trillions of dollars spent on the military allowed Brown to make a good living.

I'll settle for the facts.

Brown lives in a country that is listed 8th in standard of living. Brown lives in a secure country with a stable government. If you don't think stability and security contribute to economic success then you should go spend some time in Darfur.

Income tax is the moral high ground. That's a new one.

Civic responsibility in the face of low unemployment, low inflation, a secure and stable nation IS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.

Not irrelevent at all. Both Hussein and the US government (all others as well) put down revolts brutally. The US fights religious fundamentalists as much on their own soil as Hussein did on his. The only difference is the name of the religion they fight.

Do you really think the US is based on personal freedom?

Damn straight.

If so, why can't anyone opt out of the system?

Unlike Cubans, North Koreans and others he can haul is rear end out of the country anytime he likes. Until then he is getting benefits and society has a right to pass laws to further the rights of society.

Brown has free speech.
Brown has a vote.
Brown has the right to protest.
Brown has the right to seek redress.
Brown can commit civil disobedience without being shot (see North Korea).

I guess that is what makes Brown an a-hole more than anything else. He lives in a country that values freedom and doesn't go around putting people into jail or shooting people simply for speaking out (Bush is an idiot).

Yes, we are a free society however there are some rules in society.

• You can't kill.
• You can't rape.
• You can't steal.
• You have to pay your dues.

There is no free lunch. There is no utopia. Society doesn't work when a-holes like Brown think that the rules don't apply to them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A "terrorist state"? At best this is a controversial term with little meaning but let's use it anyway.

America was involved in a war. America used professional soldiers. By and large America followed the Geneva Convention. It would seem reasonable that to qualify as a "terrorist state" a country would have to seek terrorism as it's primary or sole means of acheiving an objetive. This does not fit the US during WWII.

I don't think such a conclusion of America being a terrorist state would follow for most reasonable people.

So morale bombing was not a terrorist act? The strategic bombing engaged in, in WWII would seem to be the perfect example of a terrorist act. Think about how much any terrorist would love to do what we did to Tokyo.

Edit to add: I just fail to see a significant moral distinction between much of the strategic bombing in WWII and 9/11.

 

[RandFan]

So morale bombing was not a terrorist act?

?

I said that it WAS. That it is doesn't make America a terrorist state.

The strategic bombing engaged in, in WWII would seem to be the perfect example of a terrorist act. Think about how much any terrorist would love to do what we did to Tokyo.

I don't disagree.

Edit to add: I just fail to see a significant moral distinction between much of the strategic bombing in WWII and 9/11.

Well of course you don't. That doesn't mean that there isn't any distinction however.

First things first, morality is relative. However most reasonable people in Brittan and the US during WWII would have agreed, IMO, that the targeting of innocent civilians was immoral and was a terrorist act.

That said.

Germany was the aggressor and was trying to control by force other nations.
The Allies were trying to preserve their sovereign nations.
Attacking city centers during WWII had a clear, specific and one coud argue reasonably obtainable objective (to bring about the end of war).

On the other hand.

9/11 had no clear or achievable objectives.
America wasn't the aggressor.
9/11 could not possibly be seen as an attempt to preserve anyones sovereignty.

Do these differences count as significant moral distinctions? It depends on who you ask. The Jews at the time who were the targets for genocide might not see the differences as insignificant.

I honestly don't know. I do know that if George Bush were to target civilians today in wholesale slaughter regardless of goals or tactics that the act by most reasonable people would be labeled terrorism. And for good reason.

The moral zeitgeist of today says that the intentional killing of civilians is immoral.

 

[ponderingturtle]

First things first, morality is relative. However most reasonable people in Brittan and the US during WWII would agree, IMO, that the targeting of innocent civilians is immoral and is a terrorist act.

That said.

Germany was the aggressor and was trying to control by force other nations.
The Allies were trying to preserve their sovereign nations.
Attacking city centers during WWII had a military goal.

So attacking civilians to damage the economic power, is acceptable when the nation you are at war with is trying to take your sovereignty? But doesn't this fit into exactly what those who perpetrated 9/11 believed?

On the other hand.

9/11 had no military objectives.
America wasn't the aggressor.
9/11 could not possibly be seen as an attempt to preserve anyones sovereignty.

Got it they have no legitimate beef with American policy, they are just insane nut jobs so unlike the noble Army Air Corps of WWII when they incinerate civilians it is a bad thing.

And it had the same objectives as incinerating Tokyo, destroy will to fight, damage the economy and so forth. So if they had been able to incinerate several American cities then it would be legitimate because it would be a real military objective?

Do these differences count is significant moral distinctions? It depends on who you ask. The Jews at the time who were fighting of genocide might not see the differences as insignificant.

So that is why we firebombed all those cities in Japan, for the Jews. I thought it was just that firestorms are so much fun, it is great when fleeing women catch fire as they are running away.

I honestly don't know. I do know that if George Bush were to target civilians today in wholesale slaughter regardless of goals or tactics that the act by most reasonable people would be labeled terrorism. And for good reason.

The moral zeitgeist of today says that the intentional killing of civilians is immoral.

Yes, but with very little care about the massive way it was used until recently. Look at Mr. Wizard, now he was in the European theater so it was not where America was using firebombing as much, but by modern standards would he be a war criminal? Relatively likely, as attacking civilians to destroy an economy seems to be out of favor at the moment.

 

[qayak]

?
First things first, morality is relative. However most reasonable people in Brittan and the US during WWII would have agreed, IMO, that the targeting of innocent civilians was immoral and was a terrorist act.

Wrong! No one minded. At the time there was little, if any, outcry and no one minded the atomic bombs either.

That said.

Germany was the aggressor and was trying to control by force other nations.
The Allies were trying to preserve their sovereign nations.
Attacking city centers during WWII had a clear, specific and one coud argue reasonably obtainable objective (to bring about the end of war).

On the other hand.

9/11 had no clear or achievable objectives.
America wasn't the aggressor.
9/11 could not possibly be seen as an attempt to preserve anyones sovereignty.

You just cleared the path for suicide bombers to be seen as moral. America is the agressor in Iraq. Targeting civilians to destabilize the occupying forces and preserve Iraq sovereignty is reasonable.

 

[RandFan]

So attacking civilians to damage the economic power, is acceptable...

"Acceptable"? Please to explain where I said anything is "acceptable"?

...when the nation you are at war with is trying to take your sovereignty? But doesn't this fit into exactly what those who perpetrated 9/11 believed?

I really don't know how I could be anymore clear. I'll try bullets. Maybe that will help.

• I don't claim any moral superiority of anyone over any other (the morality of America targeting civilians is THE SAME as 9/11).
• The discussion at hand is about what is and is not a terrorist state.
• I claim that having a defined goal (forcing the Germans to surrender) and following accepted conventions tends to belie the notion of being a terrorist state.
• Oh, and for the record, the perpetrators of 9/11 had no clearly defined achievable goal OTHER THAN TERRORISM.
• What the Allies did, in many instances, was immoral, IMO.

Ok, so these points will be ignored also. I really don't know what more to do.

Got it they have no legitimate beef with American policy, they are just insane nut jobs so unlike the noble Army Air Corps of WWII when they incinerate civilians it is a bad thing.

Strawman. Please to demonstrate how this non-sequitur follows from anything that I have said?

More bullets? {sigh} Ok.

• 9/11 did not have a defined and achievable objective beyond instilling terror.
• The only possible outcome was to instill terror which was an end to itself.
• The strategies of the Allies during WWII did have a defined and an achievable objective of getting the Germans to surrender (German did give up btw).

Now you can argue the carpet bombing ineffective and that's a fair argument but what you can't argue is that America was bombing JUST to instill terror as opposed to the Taliban and 9/11 where terrors was an end to itself.

Allies: Terror was NOT an end to itself.
9/11: Terror WAS an end to itself.

And it had the same objectives as incinerating Tokyo, destroy will to fight, damage the economy and so forth. So if they had been able to incinerate several American cities then it would be legitimate because it would be a real military objective?

If they had a military that was capable of invading America and given that 9/11 and other strategies were capable of bringing about the objectives, YES, DAMN STRAIGHT. Of course. It would follow.

I'm guessing that won't mean anything to you but let me repeat it for others.

If the Taliban had a professional army, was capable of launching a full scale attack and their strategy of targeting civilians was capable of achieving a military objective in order to get America to surrender or accede to their demands then their efforts would not be strictly terrorist in nature. Of course we now know that such efforts are of little demonstrable military value so in the end such tactics are but a means to harm civilians and nothing else.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it. Ask me again though. I've got nothing better to do than to argue ad nauseam. And since my points fall on deaf ears I'm not sure I have any other option.

So that is why we firebombed all those cities in Japan, for the Jews. I thought it was just that firestorms are so much fun, it is great when fleeing women catch fire as they are running away.

?

No clue what you are on about.

Yes, but with very little care about the massive way it was used until recently. Look at Mr. Wizard, now he was in the European theater so it was not where America was using firebombing as much, but by modern standards would he be a war criminal? Relatively likely, as attacking civilians to destroy an economy seems to be out of favor at the moment.

Again, no clue. If there is an argument in there I'm want to find it. Could you parse this for me?

 

[RandFan]

Wrong! No one minded. At the time there was little, if any, outcry and no one minded the atomic bombs either.

That there was no outcry hardly proves your thesis. These people were involved in the largest war in the history of the world. I stand by my belief that reasonable people presented with the idea of intentionally targeting innocent civilians was immoral. That was, BTW, the foundation of much of modern moral thought as it concerned warfare (please see the Geneva Convention).

However, I don't much care if you disagree. It seems rather trivial.

You just cleared the path for suicide bombers to be seen as moral. America is the agressor in Iraq. Targeting civilians to destabilize the occupying forces and preserve Iraq sovereignty is reasonable.

Sure as hell didn't need me to clear any path. Of course the suicide bombers can be seen as both moral and reasonable. Duh!

 

[qayak]

I stand by my belief that reasonable people presented with the idea of intentionally targeting innocent civilians was immoral.

Poisoning the well fallacy. You suggest that the vast majority who did not believe it to be immoral are unreasonable.

Even the people who developed the atomic bomb and knew what it woudl do did not have any issues until after the event.

Sure as hell didn't need me to clear any path. Of course the suicide bombers can be seen as both moral and reasonable. Duh!

Equivocation. Earlier you said it was not acceptable.

 

[qayak]

But you question whether he should be punished...

I question whether he should be demonized in order to allow the government to do anything to they want to him.

 

[RandFan]

Poisoning the well fallacy. You suggest that the vast majority who did not believe it to be immoral are unreasonable.

No. I suggest that you brush up on your fallacies.

There is a concept known as the "reasonable person" standard. Given the moral zeitgeist of the time (see Geneva Convention) held that the intentional killing of innocent civilians was murder then the proposition stands to reason. It is unreasonable to hold that

Even the people who developed the atomic bomb and knew what it woudl do did not have any issues until after the event.

What event? As soon as Germany capitulated Einstein and others began arguing to stop the project (this was before the bomb was completed and before any bombs were dropped) precisely because the woried that the bomb would be used in an immoral mannner. Also, it was not known precisely at the time how the bomb would be used. They knew what it could do and not necessarily that it would be used on innocent civilians.

Equivocation. Earlier you said it was not acceptable.

Please to quote me?

 

[RandFan]

So you want to decriminalize tax evasion?

What about a person who was born into a system they had no say in and completely disagree with?

But you question whether he should be punished...

I question whether he should be demonized in order to allow the government to do anything to they want to him.

Talk about equivocating?

Turtle asked if tax evasion should be decriminalized. Your direct question would seem to suggest that in fact you do. Turtle's question had nothing to do with demonizing Brown. It had to do with punishment.

There is nothing per se immoral or unethical about stigmatizing aberrant behavior. Yes, the problem becomes what is aberrant I grant you. Yes, stimizing has been used with harmful effects, see gays, minorities unwed mothers, etc.. However, refusing to pay taxes and threatening violence to peace officers is not analogous to simply being gay, a minority, or an unwed mother.

 

[qayak]

Given the moral zeitgeist of the time (see Geneva Convention) held that the intentional killing of innocent civilians was murder then the proposition stands to reason. It is unreasonable to hold that

The German bombing of Britain and the British bombing of Germany were both intentional killing of civilians. They were meant to break the spirit of the people. No "reasonable" German complained and when Britain got the chance to retaliate, no reasonable Brit complained. I guess your stance is that no one in Germany or England was reasonable at that time.

The Geneva Convention was not the moral zeitgeist you mistake it for. It was an ideal people were striving for. If it havd been the zeitgeist of the time, they wouldn't have had to write it down and try make everyone live up to it.

The moral zeitgeist was that in war everyone associated with the other side was fair game. The Geneva convention was trying to change that but it was definitely not the zeitgeist yet and probably still isn't now.

What event? As soon as Germany capitulated Einstein and others began arguing to stop the project (this was before the bomb was completed and before any bombs were dropped) precisely because the woried that the bomb would be used in an immoral mannner. Also, it was not known precisely at the time how the bomb would be used. They knew what it could do and not necessarily that it would be used on innocent civilians.

You have obviously not read much on this. Richard Feynman who worked on the bomb mentioned this as well. He stated that once Germany capitulated there was no questioning of what they were doing, or very little. He makes the point that in the frenzy to build the bomb they lost focus of what their purpose was.

Read Freeman Dyson's words on the subject. His job during the war was to make bombing as devastating as possible to German cities. He even states that there was a competition of sorts between Britain and the US to see who could create the most, and largest, firestorms with the Brits being at a disadvantage because of the type of construction used in Germany compared to Japan.

Please to quote me?

Pondering turtle asked: "So attacking civilians to damage the economic power, is acceptable..."

To which you replied: "'Acceptable'? Please to explain where I said anything is 'acceptable'?"

 

[Gurdur]

Face up to it, qayak, no matter how many tantrums you throw on a bulletin board, the world will not change itself to suit your whims. Too bad.