From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 00:21:04 +0800
To: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Subject: Re: Just Say "No" to Congress
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970519010058.00685bdc@cnw.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970519164935.2660B-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> On the other hand, he obviously believes in the authority of the US
> government, as he has always supported it in arguments on the list,
> especially in counter arguments against TCM.
> 
> So, it appears that VZN is not *ready* to hold the government accountable,
> preferring not to protest when his own money is withheld for him, but
> hypocritically wondering when everyone will make this will happen.

I have (rarely) heard reasonable noises coming for VZN`s direction, so I 
read most of his posts, or at least allow them a cursory glace, however, 
it does not suprise me when he rants.

> However, he's correct:   similar to the argument I made about there being
> no difference between those who kill the good along with the bad & the ugly
> (that's from the title of a Clint Eastwood movie, for those who aren't
> familiar with that line),  all those who argue for morality and libertarian
> ideals, but still "give in" when it comes to tax time, are all losers. <g>    

I made a point a while ago on this list, which I felt strongly was 
correct at the time and I still feel as strongly now but this argument 
draws parallels which made me think again:

I stated that anyone who, in a situation of military conscription, fought 
for a country or a cause they did not believe in, simply to avoid 
punishment for refusal to fight, was a coward.

I still believe this, but really taxation is simply paying the government 
to be your hitman for you, your tax money pays the governments barbaric 
killing and warmongering, you cannot wash your hands of this simply by 
arguing that you did not choose for the money to pay for a war, you have 
to draw the conclusion that by funding the government and the state you 
fund killing and violence elsewhere in the world.

However, I can also draw your attention to a post a while ago which made 
an analogy with an armed robbery. If someone pokes a gun in your face in 
the street do you give him your money? - Assume there is no possibility 
of escape or fighting back, and you are unarmed. 
You either hand over the money or you die... If you take the logical 
course of action and give him your money, have you made a moral decision 
that his decision to rob you was right? Of course not, you have simply 
covered your own ass in a situation where you have no option.

It is a similar case with taxation, until enough people stop whinging and 
actually do something the state will tax as it sees fit, I`m not going to 
be the first to refuse payment on ethical grounds in peacetime, maybe I`m 
lacking in moral fibre, maybe I`m just a realist and think I can do more 
for the case of freedom outside of a 6'x9' cell.  

I certainly believe that I would refuse payment in wartime, not because I 
believe war is the only state activity I feel wrong funding, but because 
I would stand a better chance of getting away with not paying tax under 
these circumstances, and this would provide a good precedent for 
withholding tax payment after a war, by drawing parallels between war and 
other activities of the state.

I wish all luck to those who do refuse to pay tax on moral and ethical 
grounds, they certainly have my admiration and I grant that they are 
probably of stronger stuff than I.

> But this shameless capitulation is intellectualized away with the
> explanation that everyone is outnumbered by the men holding the legalized
> guns, who are in turn supported by all those true believers in The American
> Socialist Way of Life;  that way being: the reception of benefits without
> any need to be consciously aware of, to identify, their actual source or
> the actual method of their obtainment.

I bear no particular grudge against certain groups of welfare recipients, 
those who have worked all their lives and paid taxes under the assumption 
that if they were eligible for welfare they would get it have commited no 
real crime in my view, save from the fact that they claim from the 
collective funds of the nation. Certainly they would have been totally 
blameless if they had invested in private assurance and insurance schemes 
whilst under employment.

It is all very well complaining about the moral weaknesses of those who 
leech off of the stolen proceeds of state enforced taxation, but to 
really change anything the most effective route is to cut off welfare at 
source, that does not mean the state itself, that means you, the 
taxpayer. Of course most of the population are now brainwashed and do not 
see the evil perpetrated by a state that in some cases in the UK 
confiscates up to 60% of earnings at source.

As I said though, I admit my own moral weakness here and agree I am 
hypocritical to some extent, so all criticism to this effect can go to 
/dev/null.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"