[dedalus]

Which, one may argue, is the crux of the whole problem.

Do you really want to live in a bureaucracy?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

Which, one may argue, is the crux of the whole problem.

Do you really want to live in a bureaucracy?

You're gonna have to deal with the bureaucracy if you want highways, regulated airspace, something beyond commercially funded scientific research, electricity, even minimal protection against outside forces (i.e. military), law enforcement, lawmaking (kill for food? no problem!), and pretty much anything that prevents the asshole next door from just ****ing you over.

Yeah, it gets abused, no it's not perfect, yes, there is much to be improved, but jeez it doesn't take even a ten-year-old to figure out that these things don't come for free.

WTF?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

Which, one may argue, is the crux of the whole problem.

Do you really want to live in a bureaucracy?

Do you really want to live in anarchy?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

run-of-the-mill people ?

I think you're way overestimating the government here...

-t

This is an excellent point, and really relates to some posters' ideas about "government" taking some sort of organized action against specific people. It just doesn't happen. The US government is a bureaucracy that is made up of "Joe Stiff" 40 hour a week clock punchers. Harry Truman noted that the world was run by C students; that's pretty much the thing with the US government. Lots of smart people in it, sure, but there are lots and lots of C students (on their best days) who bring the average down to just about their level.

As for some cross-agency action being taken by the IRS against someone who disagrees with the administration/Congress/whatever, that simply can't happen; the IRS can't manage itself internally well enough for its employees to give accurate answers for simple tax questions.

The US government, and any agency of it, is simply incapable of establishing any sort of conspiracy, "evil plan" or other Big Brother-esque badness. First, there isn't time or money for it. And there are enough people who really believe in the Constitution working at every level, in every agency, that there would be plenty of obstacles for setting up something like that from the very beginning. Now picture a bunch of C students with nasty ideas trying to organize their ideas into a plot, and how they'd get past a few really strong-willed (and smarter than the plotters) folks in their way. When I picture this, hilarity ensues on the order of "Revenge of the Nerds."

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by paul w 

You justify the death of people with a ****ing youtube link? Make a f*cking levelheaded argument for once in your life asshole.

Just because the IRS is evil doesn't mean citizens have the right to acts of vigilantism or terrorism or whatever it is that causes other people to be dead.

Yeah, I did. Watch the ****ing clip yourself, asshole. It explains exactly my sentiments. Were they innocent? NO. THEY WILLINGLY CHOSE TO WORK AT THE IRS, a organization that is almost unanimously thought of as "evil". The guy makes valid points about the hypocrisy and stupidity of our government, how they've ****ed him over, and he's sick of it. He actually ****ed them back a little bit. Good for him.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There's that whole "by the people for the people" bit, and the fact that the IRS is only evil because the people who think so decided NOT to go into politics themselves (as they were free to) to actually change things.

So long as the government doesn't actively eliminate dissidents (as opposed to the ****ing morons eliminating themselves), there's little justification for violence.

Bullshit. People are lazy, even if you devote your life to trying to change things, there's so many stupid/willfully ignorant people out there that hate change. Just look at all the republicans. They hate change, and that's like 50% of America right there. They hate the healthcare bill, they hate imports, they hate hybrids, they hate immigrants, they hate young people's music, they hate anything progressive, and any type of change. As far as they are concerned, anything new is bad. So... I dunno. I agree with everything the guy said in his "manifesto", but I still think life is worth living, even if I am constantly getting ****ed over by the government. I'm taxed when I make money, I'm taxed again at the end of the year, I'm taxed when I spend it, and if I spend it on gas, I'm taxed AGAIN. And I have to pay yearly fees for a plate to register my vehicle, and a fee to park on the street, and a fee to... etc etc etc etc. They constantly **** me over.

Instead of killing myself though, I just enjoy ****ing them back. Not through cheating my taxes, but little things here and there. If I can cheat some sort of money/pleasure out of the gigantic corrupt machine that is the government, awesome.

That said, I still respect the guy. He used logic, rationality, and decided he'd had enough, and he DID do something about it. He though he'd make more of an impact flying a ****ing plane into a building, getting national coverage, and having thousands of people read his manifesto, than if he ran for local office. He's right.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Can I acquaint you with the phrase "massive jerk?" Fine if you agree with what he wrote, but you're glad he did it?

Yep. He took a stand, and did what he believed in. And he didn't die in the name of some made up God, or over anything "religious", he did so because he thought he'd make an "impact" (zing!) this way. He did. If more people did this, and actually just declared ware on the corrupt powers that be, I am pretty sure the world would be a better place because the wealthy/powerful people would think twice before continually ****ing everyone over.

Even if you consider the IRS to be a terrible organization, it's terribly inappropriate to rebut a non-violent policy with killing.

What's next? Killing forum members who buy SUVs?

They do a good enough job of that by themselves. I will try to educate the masses who think SUVs are a good idea though.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Yep. He took a stand, and did what he believed in. And he didn't die in the name of some made up God, or over anything "religious", he did so because he thought he'd make an "impact" (zing!) this way. He did. If more people did this, and actually just declared ware on the corrupt powers that be, I am pretty sure the world would be a better place because the wealthy/powerful people would think twice before continually ****ing everyone over.







They do a good enough job of that by themselves. I will try to educate the masses who think SUVs are a good idea though.

All of those condone violence.

I'm sorry, but what he did isn't brave. It's selfish.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

That said, I still respect the guy. He used logic, rationality, and decided he'd had enough, and he DID do something about it.

It's hilarious that you think that you respect "logic" and "rationality."

All of this sounds very familiar.

[smacintush]

Logic…and…rationality.

You never fail to disappoint Rob.

[ghporter]

Rob, please note that those wars in which slavery, Nazism, fascism and Communism were defeated (eventually any way, in the case of Communism) were forced on the West and particularly on the US.

Working at the IRS is how a neighbor of mine paid for grad school. Working at the IRS pays the bills for thousands of families in Austin. It's an office job, not some sort of "giving up your soul." In fact, all the IRS does in enforce the rules that Congress establishes.

Stack didn't do anything but rail against a system that was designed to collect revenue from both individuals and businesses-and anyone who goes into business should know that from the start. Stack put too much of his ego into his business and lost any perspective. His rant sounds very paranoid and not very sane. Sure there are some points-no system is perfect and since Congress writes the tax code we can expect that it's going to be full of stupid stuff. But that same code pretty much affects everyone, and taking it personally is either very juvenile or not quite sane.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Working at the IRS is how a neighbor of mine paid for grad school. Working at the IRS pays the bills for thousands of families in Austin. It's an office job, not some sort of "giving up your soul." In fact, all the IRS does in enforce the rules that Congress establishes.

Must hold back making comments that would count as invoking Godwin's Law.

-t

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Must hold back making comments that would count as invoking Godwin's Law.

-t

Go ahead, Godwin's law needs to be repealed anyway.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Yeah, I did. Watch the ****ing clip yourself, asshole. It explains exactly my sentiments. Were they innocent? NO. THEY WILLINGLY CHOSE TO WORK AT THE IRS, a organization that is almost unanimously thought of as "evil".

That doesn't qualify as "thinking".

[dedalus]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You're gonna have to deal with the bureaucracy if you want highways, regulated airspace, something beyond commercially funded scientific research, electricity, even minimal protection against outside forces (i.e. military), law enforcement, lawmaking (kill for food? no problem!), and pretty much anything that prevents the asshole next door from just ****ing you over.

Not really. The highway system could be funded by roadside advertising, airspace regulated by commercial companies, electricity generated by solar panels and wind generators on people’s rooftops. The only state militaries of note that are engaged in wars nowadays are the U.S. and Israel, and they are getting beaten by privately funded militias. The police are also inefficient; if someone needs protection, investigation or even compensation/retaliation, the means of achieving that are private security firms, private detective agencies, private debt collectors, and private enforcers. Laws are being constantly broken, especially by the state actors who are supposed to abide by them; their efficacy seems questionable, at best. As for scientific research, its future also resides in the private sector rather than in the underfunded token public one. Finally, if the arsehole next door wanted to **** me over (or vice versa), there isn’t much the state could do to prevent that.

[dedalus]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Do you really want to live in anarchy?

It depends on what you mean by that. There is a lot of misinformation in the infosphere about what anarchists really want. If we’re talking about a non‑hierarchical system based upon liberty, dynamism and voluntary co‑operation, then yes. If you mean chaos, then no. Despite what its supporters would have you believe, there are alternatives to nanny statism.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

Not really. The highway system could be funded by roadside advertising,

You mean toll booths. Otherwise, say goodbye to any and all roads in low-population areas.

Originally Posted by dedalus 

airspace regulated by commercial companies,

yes, because we all know how private companies have only the public's best interest at mind and never cut corners that can end up killing people, when they're not regulated by federal bureaucracy and inspections. Works great for environmental aspects of industry, too.

Originally Posted by dedalus 

electricity generated by solar panels and wind generators on people’s rooftops.

I really don't know which planet you live on, but on this one, even heavy state subsidies (bureaucracy) have enabled renewable sources to supply about 15% of our power needs (in Germany), with a realistic 50% by 2050.

It is completely IMPOSSIBLE to supply all power needs locally, as locales tend to differ. Pipe hydroelectric power from Michigan to Nevada? No federal infrastructure to guarantee passage or keep a thumb on monopolists? Watch your costs explode.

Also, 100% renewable will be pretty much impossible without power networking on an intercontinental scale.

Good luck with your grass-roots, locally grown negotiations.

Unless you're Amish.

Originally Posted by dedalus 

The only state militaries of note that are engaged in wars nowadays are the U.S. and Israel, and they are getting beaten by privately funded militias.

You're kind of ignoring the militaries that AREN'T engaged in wars, and the idea that their very existence might be part of the reason they're not engaged in wars.

Let's just assume for a second a country completely without military deterrent, and without any treaties in place to guarantee protection by somebody else's.

You've got Belgium in WWII.

Or, you've got a whole country, armed to the brim (unregulated, of course, since that's federal bureaucracy), constantly involved in guerilla fighting.

The Hamas and other "privately funded" militia may be knocking about Israel quite a bit (they are NOT, contrary to your claim, even putting a mere *dent* in Israel's military), but they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, winning.

Originally Posted by dedalus 

The police are also inefficient; if someone needs protection, investigation or even compensation/retaliation, the means of achieving that are private security firms, private detective agencies, private debt collectors, and private enforcers.

Without laws or regulations to govern them and keep them in check, what you're asking for is rival Mafia and Triads taking care of your "security" needs and making sure they get their funding from you - via their private debt collectors, presumably.

Originally Posted by dedalus 

Laws are being constantly broken, especially by the state actors who are supposed to abide by them; their efficacy seems questionable, at best.

Laws work on a whole lot more levels than at the "state actors"' level.

Let me continue right after I go out and shoot that damn Negro for walking down MY street. He's sure got it comin'...

Originally Posted by dedalus 

As for scientific research, its future also resides in the private sector rather than in the underfunded token public one.

Yes, I'm afraid you may be correct on that single point.

Which is why you're already getting ass-raped by the company owning the patents on that particular life-sustaining medication you get to spend 15,000 dollars a year on just to stay alive (assuming you don't have health insurance, which, I gather, so far isn't mandated by your federal bureaucracy as it is in other civilized nations).

Originally Posted by dedalus 

Finally, if the arsehole next door wanted to **** me over (or vice versa), there isn’t much the state could do to prevent that.

If he wants to **** you over not by killing you, but by discriminating against you because you happen to be in a local minority due to any particular physical or character trait, DAMN RIGHT the state is doing things to prevent that.

Via those laws that are being broken every day, but at least lead to a means of legal recourse for the wronged.

"Voluntary" depends on everybody standing on the same side. Uh-huh.

Seriously: "Anti" without spending five minutes on actually working out how alternatives are going to work - realistically, mind you, keeping in mind how to keep those same people abusing the system now in check when there isn't even a SYSTEM they need to adhere to - is completely worthless.

It's not even activism. It's just clueless and ignorant whining.

Go crash a plane or something. Just as long as you don't hurt anybody with your stupidity.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

Not really. The highway system could be funded by roadside advertising, airspace regulated by commercial companies, electricity generated by solar panels and wind generators on people’s rooftops. The only state militaries of note that are engaged in wars nowadays are the U.S. and Israel, and they are getting beaten by privately funded militias. The police are also inefficient; if someone needs protection, investigation or even compensation/retaliation, the means of achieving that are private security firms, private detective agencies, private debt collectors, and private enforcers. Laws are being constantly broken, especially by the state actors who are supposed to abide by them; their efficacy seems questionable, at best. As for scientific research, its future also resides in the private sector rather than in the underfunded token public one. Finally, if the arsehole next door wanted to **** me over (or vice versa), there isn’t much the state could do to prevent that.

This might well be the most jaw-droppingly ludicrous post I've read in a while.

"Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid."

greg

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Must hold back making comments that would count as invoking Godwin's Law.

-t

I did not say "just following orders." Most of the tax code is administrative, dealing with what reports, what statistics, what forms, etc. to put what information in, and how to colledt that data-bureaucracy at its simplest. Tax courts enforce the civil portion of the tax code, and it appears that a special sort of lawyer inhabits those dens of conflict. But it is my understanding that the tax courts belong to the Treasury Department itself, not the IRS.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Do you really want to live in anarchy?

Originally Posted by dedalus 

It depends on what you mean by that. There is a lot of misinformation in the infosphere about what anarchists really want. If we’re talking about a non‑hierarchical system based upon liberty, dynamism and voluntary co‑operation, then yes. If you mean chaos, then no. Despite what its supporters would have you believe, there are alternatives to nanny statism.

There are two basic definitions of "anarchists." The first (historically) describes a nihilist person who seeks to remove any and all forms of government (especially well established monarchies) through violent means. It often conjures up the specter of early 20th Century terrorists.

The second definition describes persons who wish to avoid any and all government, without necessarily resorting to anything more than strong language-they're philosophical anarchists. Anarchists of this second kind are not too far distant from libertarians, though such anarchists appear to have a less organized idea of how the world they'd like to have should look.

Bomb-throwing anarchists are NOT people anyone really wants to have around; they're not good for the digestion and tend to make large messes that others have to clean up. Most people picture this form of anarchist first and foremost, lacking knowledge of the existence of the philosophical type.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

It depends on what you mean by that. There is a lot of misinformation in the infosphere about what anarchists really want. If we’re talking about a non‑hierarchical system based upon liberty, dynamism and voluntary co‑operation, then yes. If you mean chaos, then no. Despite what its supporters would have you believe, there are alternatives to nanny statism.

I was referring to the dictionary definition, not historical. While it's a grand idea, it will never happen as long as people have their own good in mind. Which will be forever.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Tax courts enforce the civil portion of the tax code, and it appears that a special sort of lawyer inhabits those dens of conflict. But it is my understanding that the tax courts belong to the Treasury Department itself, not the IRS.

And the IRS belongs to... the Treasury Department as well.

Conflict of interest is unpossible

-t

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And the IRS belongs to... the Treasury Department as well.

Conflict of interest is unpossible

-t

Duh? Where else would the money go?

Americans who complain about our "high" taxes need to try out the EU.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Rob, please note that those wars in which slavery, Nazism, fascism and Communism were defeated (eventually any way, in the case of Communism) were forced on the West and particularly on the US.

Working at the IRS is how a neighbor of mine paid for grad school. Working at the IRS pays the bills for thousands of families in Austin. It's an office job, not some sort of "giving up your soul." In fact, all the IRS does in enforce the rules that Congress establishes.

Actually they enforce something that nobody established.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax

Stack didn't do anything but rail against a system that was designed to collect revenue from both individuals and businesses-and anyone who goes into business should know that from the start. Stack put too much of his ego into his business and lost any perspective. His rant sounds very paranoid and not very sane. Sure there are some points-no system is perfect and since Congress writes the tax code we can expect that it's going to be full of stupid stuff. But that same code pretty much affects everyone, and taking it personally is either very juvenile or not quite sane.

The system is obviously broken. If not, please do my taxes. I got divorced this year, I have an LLC and I was a part time employee. I have about $6000 in expenses as well for my business. I'm sure it's super super simple.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Actually they enforce something that nobody established.

What do you mean? The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy direct taxes. See 16th Amendment.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Actually they enforce something that nobody established.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax



The system is obviously broken. If not, please do my taxes. I got divorced this year, I have an LLC and I was a part time employee. I have about $6000 in expenses as well for my business. I'm sure it's super super simple.

Please note that in both cases (whether the system is stupid or not, and whether it's broken or not), it is decidedly not personal, which is the way Stack took it.

And the Federal Income Tax has been around and enforceable since the 16th Amendment... Congress established it, albeit not so straightforwardly as to be able to say "Senator Dumbjon and Rep Simpleton crafted this." It's sort of like a prank that can't be traced back to one specific fratboy...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And the IRS belongs to... the Treasury Department as well.

Conflict of interest is unpossible

-t

No, the Tax Court is a full judicial court. Its decisions may be reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

To me, it wasn't terrorism. It was one guy that got tired of [something] (and everyone), and he just had a breakdown and did something stupid.

That's pretty much the definition of terrorism.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's pretty much the definition of terrorism.

No it isn't. Stack didn't intend to influence something, didn't plan to obtain a political goal, wasn't using his plane crash as a means or coercion. He committed suicide by flying into (actually right in front of) a building where the IRS has offices because he felt that the IRS was picking on him. That's NOT "terrorism." That's "paranoia." Quite different.

Here's a counter example: Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. He used a very powerful bomb to kill a bunch of people because he felt that the US government had done something very bad in Waco, and he wanted to express that political sentiment. Note that McVeigh didn't commit suicide. Note also that "suicide bombers" are actually the "weapons" of the real terrorists...

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

No it isn't. Stack didn't intend to influence something, didn't plan to obtain a political goal, wasn't using his plane crash as a means or coercion. He committed suicide by flying into (actually right in front of) a building where the IRS has offices because he felt that the IRS was picking on him. That's NOT "terrorism." That's "paranoia." Quite different.

So what you're saying is al qaeda's opinions on the US are valid then and any actions toward them are not terrorism as they are not "Paranoid".

I thought they did it because the US was "picking on them".

[Spheric Harlot]

They're politically motivated.

Arguably, that's a difficult distinction in this case.

[The Godfather]

If you want the leverage for coercion, you line all your ducks in a row, aim the weapon, then ask for what you want to the appropriate powers, all while making sure you won't be taken down. It's all elementary Dr Evil stuff.

This suicide pilot didn't have the will or the means to pull it off. And even if he did, the US government doesn't negotiate that way.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They're politically motivated.

Arguably, that's a difficult distinction in this case.

I still don't get how if you target a gov building with matching hate note it doesn't count as politically motivated. Is it just revenge? 9/11 was revenge then too.

Obviously this guy thought perhaps the gov would change their ways in fear of other people like him doing the same.

Muslim group wants government to call plane attack terrorism - TheHill.com

[ghporter]

al Queda is a terrorist group because they seek to overwhelm, overthrow, and subvert existing political entities by ongoing actions intended to instill terror, fear, doubt and distrust. Stack had one shot, and sought revenge against an entity. I see a big difference between the two, especially since the masterminds (if you can call them that) in al Queda aren't the ones dying for their cause, while Stack's whole point was to die for his.

Stack committed suicide and tried to blame it on the IRS by flying his plane into a building with IRS offices. Al Queda had a bunch of guys (my term for them is "saps") fly planes into several buildings in order to damage the financial structure of the United States. Isn't that a substantial difference?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I still don't get how if you target a gov building with matching hate note it doesn't count as politically motivated. Is it just revenge? 9/11 was revenge then too.

Obviously this guy thought perhaps the gov would change their ways in fear of other people like him doing the same.

Muslim group wants government to call plane attack terrorism - TheHill.com

As I said, it's arguable.

However, my opinion is that *saying* it's political doesn't *make* it political.