Learn The Facts About Lavigne's Tax Refusal
Detax Unmasked
Daniel J. Lavigne (tax...@taxrefusal.com) has repeatedly stated that
Canadian court Decision T2020-88 to a case originally filed by Mr.
Lavigne against the Canadian government, in conjunction with Rule
419(1)(a) of the court rules as they existed at the time, constitutes
legal justification for Canadians to refuse to pay taxes.
Interested readers are invited to review the decision and its
underlying court rule, posted hereby and herein without editing or
comment. The material is factual in nature, unadulterated by
subjective comment, interpretation, or any other attempt at
persuasion, and can be verified from objective sources by anyone
wishing to do so. (The Federal Court Rules as they existed at the
time of Decision T2020-88 may be found at
http://www.fja.gc.ca/en/cf/regles/crc663_en.)
Lavigne does not want you to see this material because it disproves
his statements regarding Decision T2020-88, and demonstrates
conclusively that his tax refusal has no basis in Canadian law.
This information is provided as a service to the readership. My
intrest is in your judgement regarding Lavigne's tax refusal being an
informed one.
========================================================
First, the decision:
========================================================
(1) Upon motion dated the 1st day of December, 1988 on behalf of the
Plaintiff, for such Judgment as the Court may think just not
withstanding that it is accused by the Plaintiff of being in a
visible, cognizable, critical and crucial conflict of interest in the
matter:
ORDER:
Motion Dismissed.
(2) Upon motion dated the 2nd day of December, 1988 on behalf of the
Defendant, for an Order:
(a) striking out the Statement of Claim herein and dismissing the
action on the basis that, pursuant to Rule 419(1)(a) of The Federal
Court Rules, the Statement Of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of
action;
(b) in the alternative, that pursuant to Rule 415 of the Federal Court
Rules, the Plaintiff provide particulars as to the basis for the
appeal from his assessment of tax;
(c) in the further alternative, for an Order granting the defendant an
extension of time within which to file a Defence.
ORDER:
The statement of claim is struck as revealing no reasonable cause of
action.
=======================================================
Next, the court rule:
=======================================================
Striking out Pleadings
Rule 419. (1) The Court may at any stage of an action order any
pleading or anything in any pleading to be struck out, with or without
leave to amend, on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case
may be,
(b) it is immaterial or redundant,
(c) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(d) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) it constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be
entered accordingly.
(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under paragraph
(1)(a).
(3) In this Rule, "departure" means that which is prohibited by Rule
411.
=======================================================
---
Learn the facts about Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/grosby/detax_unmasked/
Ron
Why did you flee the U.S.?
Detax Unmasked
Zippybear
"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cdbca6e...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net...
> Daniel J. Lavigne (tax...@taxrefusal.com) has repeatedly stated that
> Canadian court Decision T2020-88 to a case originally filed by Mr.
> Lavigne against the Canadian government, in conjunction with Rule
> 419(1)(a) of the court rules as they existed at the time, constitutes
> legal justification for Canadians to refuse to pay taxes.
>
> Interested readers are invited to review the decision and its
> underlying court rule, posted hereby and herein without editing or
> comment. The material is factual in nature, unadulterated by
> subjective comment, interpretation, or any other attempt at
> persuasion, and can be verified from objective sources by anyone
> wishing to do so. (The Federal Court Rules as they existed at the
> time of Decision T2020-88 may be found at
> http://www.fja.gc.ca/en/cf/regles/crc663_en.)
I get a file not found error when visiting your link.
ZB
Detax Unmasked
Unfortunately, the material is in the process of being converted to
.pdf form. Go to http://www.fja.gc.ca/fed_rules/index_e.html for more
info.
Detax Unmasked
========================================================
First, the decision:
========================================================
ORDER:
Motion Dismissed.
=======================================================
Next, the court rule:
=======================================================
Striking out Pleadings
=======================================================
====
Learn the facts about Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
Apostle
"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cfe6c3f...@news.his.com...
Joe
"Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote in message
news:QzwL8.187220$GG6.15...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Exactly how much do u make/hr MR. CCRA agent?
Great come back. Now prove what he said is wrong.
Roger R.
>
Gee. His post provided data and calculations. Your post provided ---- what?
I'll buy Detax Unmasked's post, thank you. You have wasted your energy
posting garbage.
JOE
Apostle, how much do you make running a detax confidence game where
the victim is defrauded after his or her confidence has been won?
You rate less than puke.
Joe
dot con artist
noun. A person who runs an Internet-based scam or fraud.
Backgrounder:
This phrase combines dot com with con artist, short for confidence
artist (or confidence man), a person who runs a confidence game where
the victim is defrauded after his or her confidence has been won. The
frauds perpetrated by dot con artists are called dot cons.
http://www.logophilia.com/WordSpy/dotconartist.asp
Avoid These Tax Protest Scams Like You Would Avoid The Plague
On a daily basis, we learn about various tax protest scams who will
only succeed in leading you down a path of destruction. All of them
perpetuate over the Internet. They run from the utterly absurd to the
completely ridiculous, from the convicted felons to the merely looney.
The bottom line is that ALL of the arguments are complete works of
fiction and none have any validity whatsoever.
http://www.taxes.com/tax_scams.html
Detax Unmasked
>Exactly how much do u make/hr MR. CCRA agent?
Nothing. I do this as a public service.
And I note that you have no comment whatsoever on the substance of my
original. Wise decision, as it is purely factual in nature, and the
facts speak for themselves.
Have a nice day ...
Blade
Unmasked) wrote:
>"Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
>
>>Exactly how much do u make/hr MR. CCRA agent?
>
>Nothing. I do this as a public service.
>
>And I note that you have no comment whatsoever on the substance of my
>original. Wise decision, as it is purely factual in nature, and the
>facts speak for themselves.
>
>Have a nice day ...
Blade] First off, you don't know what a fact is. A fact is a condition
of state. To my knowledge, nobody argues over what a condition of
state is, only what it means.
>
>
>====
>
>Learn about my personal opinions of Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
>http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/
JOE
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:22:51 GMT, detax_u...@hotmail.com (Detax
> Unmasked) wrote:
>
> >"Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Exactly how much do u make/hr MR. CCRA agent?
> >
> >Nothing. I do this as a public service.
> >
> >And I note that you have no comment whatsoever on the substance of my
> >original. Wise decision, as it is purely factual in nature, and the
> >facts speak for themselves.
> >
> >Have a nice day ...
>
> Blade] First off, you don't know what a fact is. A fact is a condition
> of state. To my knowledge, nobody argues over what a condition of
> state is, only what it means.
Blade = dot con artist
dot con artist
noun. A person who runs an Internet-based scam or fraud.
Backgrounder:
This phrase combines dot com with con artist, short for confidence
artist (or confidence man), a person who runs a confidence game where
the victim is defrauded after his or her confidence has been won. The
frauds perpetrated by dot con artists are called dot cons.
http://www.logophilia.com/WordSpy/dotconartist.asp
Avoid These Tax Protest Scams Like You Would Avoid The Plague
On a daily basis, we learn about various tax protest scams who will
only succeed in leading you down a path of destruction. All of them
perpetuate over the Internet. They run from the utterly absurd to the
completely ridiculous, from the convicted felons to the merely looney.
The bottom line is that ALL of the arguments are complete works of
fiction and none have any validity whatsoever.
http://www.taxes.com/tax_scams.html
> >
> >
Detax Unmasked
>On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:22:51 GMT, detax_u...@hotmail.com (Detax
>Unmasked) wrote:
>
>>"Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly how much do u make/hr MR. CCRA agent?
>>
>>Nothing. I do this as a public service.
>>
>>And I note that you have no comment whatsoever on the substance of my
>>original. Wise decision, as it is purely factual in nature, and the
>>facts speak for themselves.
>>
>>Have a nice day ...
>
>Blade] First off, you don't know what a fact is. A fact is a condition
>of state. To my knowledge, nobody argues over what a condition of
>state is, only what it means.
Whine, whine, whine.
I know what is a fact. You "know" what you want a fact to be.
Your position is just another variation of Eldon's tactic of making up
private definitions to suit his predetermined conclusions. Didn't
work when he did it, won't work with you.
====
Learn the facts about Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/7/02 10:24 AM:
> Blade <ema...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:22:51 GMT, detax_u...@hotmail.com (Detax
>> Unmasked) wrote:
>>
>>> "Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly how much do u make/hr MR. CCRA agent?
>>>
>>> Nothing. I do this as a public service.
>>>
>>> And I note that you have no comment whatsoever on the substance of my
>>> original. Wise decision, as it is purely factual in nature, and the
>>> facts speak for themselves.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day ...
>>
>> Blade] First off, you don't know what a fact is. A fact is a condition
>> of state. To my knowledge, nobody argues over what a condition of
>> state is, only what it means.
>
> Whine, whine, whine.
>
> I know what is a fact. You "know" what you want a fact to be.
>
> Your position is just another variation of Eldon's tactic of making up
> private definitions to suit his predetermined conclusions. Didn't
> work when he did it, won't work with you.
>
ANYTHING YOU SAY MR KNOW NOTHING
Daniel Lavigne
members; all of which have signed a statement that they
shall NEVER AGAIN aid, abet or otherwise fund, assist or
support, a society that would commit Mass Murder.
***********************************************************
Say *NO* To Societal Insanity
***********************************************************
TUNE IN - http://www.taxrefusal.com - TAX OUT
JOE
Daniel, you are a fraud. Your Tax Refusal is a fraud.
Daniel Lavigne = dot con artist
Asia Svoren
ron_star_diablow...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/7/02 9:20 PM:
> Daniel Lavigne <tax...@aei.ca> wrote in message
> news:<3D0128E4...@aei.ca>...
>> Started in 1980, the Tax Refusal has grown to some 20,400
>> members; all of which have signed a statement that they
>> shall NEVER AGAIN aid, abet or otherwise fund, assist or
>> support, a society that would commit Mass Murder.
>> ***********************************************************
>> Say *NO* To Societal Insanity
>> ***********************************************************
>> TUNE IN - http://www.taxrefusal.com - TAX OUT
>
JOE, you keep sitting there playing with yourself because you have nothing
of worth in your posts.
Asia
Smokin'
> Canadian court Decision T2020-88 to a case originally filed by Mr.
> Lavigne against the Canadian government, in conjunction with Rule
> 419(1)(a) of the court rules as they existed at the time, constitutes
> legal justification for Canadians to refuse to pay taxes.
>
> Interested readers are invited to review the decision and its
> underlying court rule, posted hereby and herein without editing or
> comment. The material is factual in nature, unadulterated by
> subjective comment, interpretation, or any other attempt at
> persuasion, and can be verified from objective sources by anyone
> wishing to do so. (The Federal Court Rules as they existed at the
> time of Decision T2020-88 may be found at
> http://www.fja.gc.ca/en/cf/regles/crc663_en.)
Nothing was found there except:
404 Error - File not found
Dear user,
Some sections of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs
site have been revamped and this may explain why the Web server cannot find
the file or script you requested. Please visit our home page to find our
site and link to the information you are looking for....
As for the remainder of your legal stuff... it probably does not matter. You
can fine and punish and jail as many people as you wish, but that will not
change the fact that free men have always had the right to refuse to pay
taxes and they always will. Lavigne may or may not be running a scam (I
really don't know) but that does not change the fact that refusing to fund a
corrupt regime is a legitimate and meaningful form of dissent. Jailing
dissenters is the stuff of tyranny and will breed revolution.
have a nice day.
Blade
You tell 'em smokey. These authoritarians are expert in advocating for
the maintainance of a system that interferes in the peaceful,
non-violent, non-victim creating actions and choices of others.
Quaider still believes, through his interpretation of the law, that
there is no basis in law for free men to refuse to pay taxes since
your status as citizen, set at birth without your knowledge or consent
to be obedient and subject to any law passed by the state, does not
come with this right or freedom, as defined by the state.
Detax Unmasked
>
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3cfe6c3f...@news.his.com...
>> Daniel J. Lavigne (tax...@taxrefusal.com) has repeatedly stated that
>> Canadian court Decision T2020-88 to a case originally filed by Mr.
>> Lavigne against the Canadian government, in conjunction with Rule
>> 419(1)(a) of the court rules as they existed at the time, constitutes
>> legal justification for Canadians to refuse to pay taxes.
>>
>> Interested readers are invited to review the decision and its
>> underlying court rule, posted hereby and herein without editing or
>> comment. The material is factual in nature, unadulterated by
>> subjective comment, interpretation, or any other attempt at
>> persuasion, and can be verified from objective sources by anyone
>> wishing to do so. (The Federal Court Rules as they existed at the
>> time of Decision T2020-88 may be found at
>> http://www.fja.gc.ca/en/cf/regles/crc663_en.)
>
>Nothing was found there except:
>404 Error - File not found
>
>Dear user,
>
>Some sections of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs
>site have been revamped and this may explain why the Web server cannot find
>the file or script you requested. Please visit our home page to find our
>site and link to the information you are looking for....
It happens.
>As for the remainder of your legal stuff...
It's not *my* legal stuff. It's a court decision, and a court rule.
It's the law.
>... it probably does not matter.
Sure it does.
> You
>can fine and punish and jail as many people as you wish, but that will not
>change the fact that free men have always had the right to refuse to pay
>taxes and they always will.
Nope.
>Lavigne may or may not be running a scam (I
>really don't know) but that does not change the fact that refusing to fund a
>corrupt regime is a legitimate and meaningful form of dissent.
Civil disobedience has always had a place in dissenting against what
one believes are unjust laws, but to be effective it must be conducted
in an ethical manner.
Ghandi and King never pretended that what they were doing was *legal*;
they did, however, assert that what they were doing was *just*. By
contrast, Lavigne asserts that what he is proposing (whether he
actually does it is open to question) is *legal*, which is not the
case, as the court decision demonstrates.
Smokin'
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
> >> Interested readers are invited to review the decision and its
> >> underlying court rule, posted hereby and herein without editing or
> >> comment. The material is factual in nature, unadulterated by
> >> subjective comment, interpretation, or any other attempt at
> >> persuasion, and can be verified from objective sources by anyone
> >> wishing to do so. (The Federal Court Rules as they existed at the
> >> time of Decision T2020-88 may be found at
> >> http://www.fja.gc.ca/en/cf/regles/crc663_en.)
> >
> >Nothing was found there except:
> >404 Error - File not found
> >
> >Dear user,
> >
> >Some sections of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial
Affairs
> >site have been revamped and this may explain why the Web server cannot
find
> >the file or script you requested. Please visit our home page to find our
> >site and link to the information you are looking for....
>
> It happens.
Yes it does. People in government make mistakes quite frequently. Sometimes,
those mistakes are trivial (like a 404 webpage) and sometimes they are
whoppers like taxing free men.
> >As for the remainder of your legal stuff...
>
> It's not *my* legal stuff. It's a court decision, and a court rule.
> It's the law.
You are championing it, so that makes it 'your' stuff. You repeat "it's the
law" like some sort of religious mantra or chant, hoping that this might
somehow change something. It won't change anything, 'the law' in Canada is
corrupt and is nothing more than arbitrary rules made by the current regime.
"The law" is an ass.
> >... it probably does not matter.
>
> Sure it does.
Not to anyone who understands the law and politics.
> > You
> >can fine and punish and jail as many people as you wish, but that will
not
> >change the fact that free men have always had the right to refuse to pay
> >taxes and they always will.
>
> Nope.
Yup.
> >Lavigne may or may not be running a scam (I
> >really don't know) but that does not change the fact that refusing to
fund a
> >corrupt regime is a legitimate and meaningful form of dissent.
>
> Civil disobedience has always had a place in dissenting against what
> one believes are unjust laws, but to be effective it must be conducted
> in an ethical manner.
Nobody has suggested otherwise.
> Ghandi and King never pretended that what they were doing was *legal*;
> they did, however, assert that what they were doing was *just*.
*Just* is synoymous with "lawful" in a common law jurisdiction. Some people
believe that Canada is a common law jurisdiction, and use the terms
interchangeably. The word "legal" is different from "lawful" and especially
where legalities create unlawful injustice... places like Canada with unjust
and unlawful (but quite legal) tax legislation. Regrettably, the distinction
is not clear to most people so "lawful" and "legal" are often used
interchangeably.
> By
> contrast, Lavigne asserts that what he is proposing (whether he
> actually does it is open to question) is *legal*, which is not the
> case, as the court decision demonstrates.
I agree that referring to tax refusal as being "legal" is a mistake. Making
a mistake is not necessarily unethical or fraudulent or a "con".
It is to be expected that tax dissidents will represent a broad spectrum of
people from all walks of life, and they will not all be legal scholars or
saints. We all make mistakes, whether tax dissident or government taxman.
None of that changes the fact that tax refusal is absolutely the right thing
to do in Canada at this time, for a number of very good reasons.
Detax Unmasked
>> >Lavigne may or may not be running a scam (I
>> >really don't know) but that does not change the fact that refusing to
>fund a
>> >corrupt regime is a legitimate and meaningful form of dissent.
>>
>> Civil disobedience has always had a place in dissenting against what
>> one believes are unjust laws, but to be effective it must be conducted
>> in an ethical manner.
>
>Nobody has suggested otherwise.
By their actions are they known.
In my opinion, an objective reading of the material regarding
Lavigne's court case reveal that his assertions regarding that case
are false on their face.
>> Ghandi and King never pretended that what they were doing was *legal*;
>> they did, however, assert that what they were doing was *just*.
>
>*Just* is synoymous with "lawful" in a common law jurisdiction. Some people
>believe that Canada is a common law jurisdiction, and use the terms
>interchangeably. The word "legal" is different from "lawful" and especially
>where legalities create unlawful injustice... places like Canada with unjust
>and unlawful (but quite legal) tax legislation. Regrettably, the distinction
>is not clear to most people so "lawful" and "legal" are often used
>interchangeably.
An example: Canada's adoption of legal age discrimination in the face
of a constitutional prohibition of such discrimination. Legal? Sure.
Why? Because the Supreme Court of Canada said so. Just? Hell no.
>> By
>> contrast, Lavigne asserts that what he is proposing (whether he
>> actually does it is open to question) is *legal*, which is not the
>> case, as the court decision demonstrates.
>
>I agree that referring to tax refusal as being "legal" is a mistake. Making
>a mistake is not necessarily unethical or fraudulent or a "con".
I don't think he's making a mistake. I think he's being intentionally
mesleading. Heck, he sells a card that has the effect of cheating
honest merchants. *That* is not a mistake.
>It is to be expected that tax dissidents will represent a broad spectrum of
>people from all walks of life, and they will not all be legal scholars or
>saints. We all make mistakes, whether tax dissident or government taxman.
>None of that changes the fact that tax refusal is absolutely the right thing
>to do in Canada at this time, for a number of very good reasons.
That may well be, but what Lavigne is doing simply cannot succeed in
accomplishing anything productive, for the simple reason that it fails
the ethics test.
Smokin'
> >> Civil disobedience has always had a place in dissenting against what
> >> one believes are unjust laws, but to be effective it must be conducted
> >> in an ethical manner.
> >
> >Nobody has suggested otherwise.
>
> By their actions are they known.
So, if I understand what you are saying, your objection is to Lavigne and
his 'program' specifically and not to tax-refusal in general.
> In my opinion, an objective reading of the material regarding
> Lavigne's court case reveal that his assertions regarding that case
> are false on their face.
If you've actually read all the stuff he posts, then you have a lot more
patience than I do. I usually stop at the "mass murder" part, which seems to
form the foundation of the remainder.
...
> >and unlawful (but quite legal) tax legislation. Regrettably, the
distinction
> >is not clear to most people so "lawful" and "legal" are often used
> >interchangeably.
>
> An example: Canada's adoption of legal age discrimination in the face
> of a constitutional prohibition of such discrimination. Legal? Sure.
> Why? Because the Supreme Court of Canada said so. Just? Hell no.
You can find even more outrageous injustice in the so-called family law
courts. More than mere discrimination, those courts actually brutalize,
torture (sometimes to the point of suicide) and extort people. And it is all
perfectly legal.
> >I agree that referring to tax refusal as being "legal" is a mistake.
Making
> >a mistake is not necessarily unethical or fraudulent or a "con".
>
> I don't think he's making a mistake. I think he's being intentionally
> mesleading. Heck, he sells a card that has the effect of cheating
> honest merchants. *That* is not a mistake.
Pehaps he is merely overzealous?
> >It is to be expected that tax dissidents will represent a broad spectrum
of
> >people from all walks of life, and they will not all be legal scholars or
> >saints. We all make mistakes, whether tax dissident or government taxman.
> >None of that changes the fact that tax refusal is absolutely the right
thing
> >to do in Canada at this time, for a number of very good reasons.
>
> That may well be, but what Lavigne is doing simply cannot succeed in
> accomplishing anything productive, for the simple reason that it fails
> the ethics test.
You might be right, I don't know. I think tax-refusal is the right thing to
do in Canada, and I fully expect that there will be shady operators who take
advantage of people who are trying to do the right thing. Such people will
be more vulnerable, lacking legal defenses. In general, I prefer people
doing the right things for the wrong reasons to people who do wrong things
for the right reasons. I agree that con-men should be exposed and
prosecuted.
As for Lavigne... I don't know which category he falls into. From his
rambling here, I assumed he was just an eccentric crank riding a hobby
horse.
Detax Unmasked
>
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d0ba65...@news.his.com...
>
>> >> Civil disobedience has always had a place in dissenting against what
>> >> one believes are unjust laws, but to be effective it must be conducted
>> >> in an ethical manner.
>> >
>> >Nobody has suggested otherwise.
>>
>> By their actions are they known.
>
>So, if I understand what you are saying, your objection is to Lavigne and
>his 'program' specifically and not to tax-refusal in general.
Pretty much. A principled civil disobedience is one thing; what
Lavigne is doing does not qualify.
>> In my opinion, an objective reading of the material regarding
>> Lavigne's court case reveal that his assertions regarding that case
>> are false on their face.
>
>If you've actually read all the stuff he posts, then you have a lot more
>patience than I do. I usually stop at the "mass murder" part, which seems to
>form the foundation of the remainder.
All I really had to read was the factual material regarding his case
to figure out that he's not what he claims to be.
>> >I agree that referring to tax refusal as being "legal" is a mistake.
>Making
>> >a mistake is not necessarily unethical or fraudulent or a "con".
>>
>> I don't think he's making a mistake. I think he's being intentionally
>> mesleading. Heck, he sells a card that has the effect of cheating
>> honest merchants. *That* is not a mistake.
>
>Pehaps he is merely overzealous?
If that were the case, he wouldn't be selliing, and making a profit,
on cards intended to defraud honest merchants.
>> >It is to be expected that tax dissidents will represent a broad spectrum
>of
>> >people from all walks of life, and they will not all be legal scholars or
>
>> >saints. We all make mistakes, whether tax dissident or government taxman.
>> >None of that changes the fact that tax refusal is absolutely the right
>thing
>> >to do in Canada at this time, for a number of very good reasons.
>>
>> That may well be, but what Lavigne is doing simply cannot succeed in
>> accomplishing anything productive, for the simple reason that it fails
>> the ethics test.
>
>You might be right, I don't know. I think tax-refusal is the right thing to
>do in Canada, and I fully expect that there will be shady operators who take
>advantage of people who are trying to do the right thing. Such people will
>be more vulnerable, lacking legal defenses. In general, I prefer people
>doing the right things for the wrong reasons to people who do wrong things
>for the right reasons. I agree that con-men should be exposed and
>prosecuted.
>
>As for Lavigne... I don't know which category he falls into. From his
>rambling here, I assumed he was just an eccentric crank riding a hobby
>horse.
That might be part of it. Trollers do what they do merely to Call
Attention To Themselves. In that respect, Lavigne sure does qualify.
Smokin'
...
> >As for Lavigne... I don't know which category he falls into. From his
> >rambling here, I assumed he was just an eccentric crank riding a hobby
> >horse.
>
> That might be part of it. Trollers do what they do merely to Call
> Attention To Themselves. In that respect, Lavigne sure does qualify.
>
>
> ====
>
> Learn the facts about Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
> http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/
What's your beef with Warman? He appears harmless enough.
Detax Unmasked
In my opinion, he's both a liar and an anti-semitic bigot, and uses
both to project his failures in life upon others.
Blade
Blade] He likes palestianians and favours torah jews so he can't be
the anti-semitic bigot you constantly try to pin him to be, for to be
an anti-semite you'd have to hate both torah jews and arabs equally
since they are both semitic people, but don't let the small piece of
detail bother you Mr. Unmasked in your constant attempt to spread your
beliefs and misinformation as truth.
Smokin'
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
> >What's your beef with Warman? He appears harmless enough.
>
> In my opinion, he's both a liar and an anti-semitic bigot, and uses
> both to project his failures in life upon others.
I was more interested in your opinion of his de-tax ideas than his personal
foibles.
Diablo
Remember, it's just Fred's opinion!
Who's Fred (Detax Unmasked <detax_u...@hotmail.com>)? He's the
yankee who believes that the CCRA, run by INCOMPETENTS, has a RIGHT to
CONFISCATE what THEY WILL.
___________________________________
message <3c79d310...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>
From: Detax Unmasked (detax_u...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Is having a SIN the law Canada?
Newsgroups: can.taxes
Date: 2002-02-24 22:12:03 PST
"...the CCRA, liked most of the Canadian civil service, is incompetent
does not mean they have no legal standing to pursue you, prosecute you,
and confiscate what they will. It simply means that they are
incompetent."
___________________________________
Fred also promoted the "Sunrise in the West" Theory!
"Sunrise Discovery
This morning, September 5, 2001, I saw the sun rise in the West.
This is not open to dispute or refutation."
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/grosby/sunrise.html
___________________________________
Now...
Go see what all the fuss is about. Learn the reasons why our RESIDENT
goons are so preoccupied in doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to discredit FACTS
that exposes them as TRAITORS to the Canadian and American peoples.
It's called DetaxCanada
http://www.detaxcanada.org/index1.htm
Here are some quotes from the opening page...
----------
Just Say "NO!" To
INCOME TAX
************
ŠDetaxCanadaŽ
-----------
THE PROVEN DETAX PROGRAM
(16 YEARS OF EFFECTIVE USAGE)
THAT TEACHES YOU HOW TO:
* QUIT FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS
* QUIT PAYING INCOME TAX
[ IN CANADA ]
* NULLIFY CCRA (Rev Can)
ASSESSMENTS AND LEVIES
PERMANENTLY - EFFECTIVELY - LAWFULLY
----------
There has been a TRESPASS UPON YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY by an act
(or acts) of FRAUD perpetrated by Federal Government of Canada.
You have had a contract imposed upon you in violation of basic contract
law and in violation of the Statute of Frauds (Br. A.D. 1677).
This imposed contract then "OUTLAWED" you in violation of
Section 39 of the Magna Carta (A.D.1215 - Revised A.D. 1225);
and thus, unlawfully removed your Sovereign Status.
DETAXCANADA IS ABOUT
RECOVERING A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION
OF YOUR RIGHTFUL SOVEREIGN STATUS.
As King John learned in 1215 AD, we realize that "sovereignty"
is a relative - not an absolute condition.
THE ELIMINATION OF THE INCOME TAX, AND
ASSOCIATED HASSLES, IS A SECONDARY ISSUE
----------
CANADA, A COUNTRY
WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION
A booklet by:
Walter F. Kuhl, Social Credit M.P.
Jasper-Edson 1935-1949
Learn many startling facts about Canada which are not taught in the
Canadian educational system - And certainly not mentioned by the
controlled news media
Fact: Canada has NO crown and NO throne - The British Queen, in
claiming to be the Queen of Canada, is a fraud, a hoax and a pretender.
Fact: No British Monarch has any right to rule Canada since the death
of Queen Victoria.
Fact: Canada was NEVER confederated in 1867; nor, has it been at
anytime since.
Fact: The Parliament of Canada was a British "club" [without Roman
personhood, or status as a "body politic"] which has usurped the
authority to be the hoax Federal Government of the imaginary country
called Canada.
Fact: The imaginary country called Canada has no authentic
constitution, nor has it an authentic national flag - both are a hoax.
----------
A Word About The Price Of My Detax Program . . .
The DetaxCanada program is FREE!
This is NOT a commercial venture.
----------
WE NEED A CANADIAN MAGNA CARTA
The "detax" method of "Just Say NO!" is one of several "NOs" we need to
use in the Mahatma Ghandi method of confronting and defeating this
despotic and impostor government; and, to regain our sovereign status
as Sons of God living on planet Earth.
Learning about the Common Law, and our Common Law heritage is a
definite requirement for those Canadians who would participate in the
recovery of our Canada as a free country for ourselves and our
posterity.
----------
The assumed incorporation contract with the Crown changing your status
toa person - a fictional character, and thus a "taxpayer", is a
"voidable" contract that ceases to exist if a subject Canadian uses
lawful methods to void that voidable contract.
----------
WARNING!!
YOU ARE CARRYING AROUND
IN YOUR WALLET OR PURSE
A SIGNED CONFESSION OF GUILT
ADMITTING TO THE CRIME OF THEFT
When you signed for your "driver's license" at the provincial registry,
you entered a "GUILTY" plea into the public record. Your "driver's
license" is a signed confession for a felony called "theft".
----------
Incredible!!! Check it out today.
DetaxCanada
http://www.detaxcanada.org/index1.htm
In article <3d0cafa...@news.his.com>, Detax Unmasked
Roger R.
Most anti-Semites aren't so logical that they see the similarities between
Arabs and Jews. Pointing out Warman's illogic does not defend him. It
condemns him further.
Detax Unmasked
>
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d0cafa...@news.his.com...
>> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>
>> >What's your beef with Warman? He appears harmless enough.
>>
>> In my opinion, he's both a liar and an anti-semitic bigot, and uses
>> both to project his failures in life upon others.
>
>I was more interested in your opinion of his de-tax ideas than his personal
>foibles.
I see.
Hard to separate the two when the "ideas" are based on private
definitions, distortions, and assumptions based on facts not in
evidence.
Eldon claims that there is some sort of "assumed contract" between the
individual and the state, but when pressed, he is not only unable to
provide evidence of same, but has acknowledged that no such contract
exists.
There is no substance to his "ideas".
Smokin'
"Diablo" <irc-d...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:160620021555411308%irc-d...@shaw.ca...
> It's called DetaxCanada
> http://www.detaxcanada.org/index1.htm
>
> Here are some quotes from the opening page...
>
> ----------
>
> Just Say "NO!" To
> INCOME TAX
> ************
That seems simple enough, and certainly not any sort of scam.
> ŠDetaxCanadaŽ
>
> -----------
> THE PROVEN DETAX PROGRAM
> (16 YEARS OF EFFECTIVE USAGE)
>
> THAT TEACHES YOU HOW TO:
>
> * QUIT FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS
>
> * QUIT PAYING INCOME TAX
> [ IN CANADA ]
>
> * NULLIFY CCRA (Rev Can)
> ASSESSMENTS AND LEVIES
>
> PERMANENTLY - EFFECTIVELY - LAWFULLY
I notice that it says "LAWFULLY" instead of "LEGALLY". That's a sign that
author has some understanding of the difference.
> There has been a TRESPASS UPON YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY by an act
> (or acts) of FRAUD perpetrated by Federal Government of Canada.
>
> You have had a contract imposed upon you in violation of basic contract
> law and in violation of the Statute of Frauds (Br. A.D. 1677).
>
> This imposed contract then "OUTLAWED" you in violation of
> Section 39 of the Magna Carta (A.D.1215 - Revised A.D. 1225);
> and thus, unlawfully removed your Sovereign Status.
That could be. A friend was in court recently, and the government lawyer
said that there are no "commoners or freemen" in Canada, or anywhere that he
is aware of. He wasn't sure when we stopped being commoners and freemen, but
that might have something to do with the government taking away our commoner
and freeman status without telling us. That would be a fraud, wouldn't it?
> Fact: Canada has NO crown and NO throne - The British Queen, in
> claiming to be the Queen of Canada, is a fraud, a hoax and a pretender.
That could be. I did notice that the Queen is slowly disappearing from money
in Canada.
> Fact: No British Monarch has any right to rule Canada since the death
> of Queen Victoria.
>
> Fact: Canada was NEVER confederated in 1867; nor, has it been at
> anytime since.
>
> Fact: The Parliament of Canada was a British "club" [without Roman
> personhood, or status as a "body politic"] which has usurped the
> authority to be the hoax Federal Government of the imaginary country
> called Canada.
>
> Fact: The imaginary country called Canada has no authentic
> constitution, nor has it an authentic national flag - both are a hoax.
There might be some truth to that. A lot of things get doen by Ottawa
parliament without any authorization from the people living in Canada. Like
the GST, for example.
> ----------
> A Word About The Price Of My Detax Program . . .
>
> The DetaxCanada program is FREE!
> This is NOT a commercial venture.
So... he isn't even charging for this?????
> ----------
> WE NEED A CANADIAN MAGNA CARTA
>
> The "detax" method of "Just Say NO!" is one of several "NOs" we need to
> use in the Mahatma Ghandi method of confronting and defeating this
> despotic and impostor government; and, to regain our sovereign status
> as Sons of God living on planet Earth.
>
> Learning about the Common Law, and our Common Law heritage is a
> definite requirement for those Canadians who would participate in the
> recovery of our Canada as a free country for ourselves and our
> posterity.
> ----------
> The assumed incorporation contract with the Crown changing your status
> toa person - a fictional character, and thus a "taxpayer", is a
> "voidable" contract that ceases to exist if a subject Canadian uses
> lawful methods to void that voidable contract.
Maybe that's true?
> > Learn the facts about Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
> > http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/
Well... we seem t have a clash of opinions. Who is right?
Smokin'
> Eldon claims that there is some sort of "assumed contract" between the
> individual and the state, but when pressed, he is not only unable to
> provide evidence of same, but has acknowledged that no such contract
> exists.
>
> There is no substance to his "ideas".
Doesn't he claim that the tax return is a type of contract? And various
other government forms?
quantrell
Q) Does he?
Detax Unmasked
Smokin'
"quantrell" <majorqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b39a930c.02061...@posting.google.com...
> > Doesn't he claim that the tax return is a type of contract? And various
> > other government forms?
>
> Q) Does he?
I think he does.
Smokin'
> >Doesn't he claim that the tax return is a type of contract? And various
> >other government forms?
>
> Sure, but that does not make it so.
That's true, but neither does it mean it isn't so. Those documents might be
contracts.
Blade
Blade] These guys intentionally misrepresent the detaxcanada program.
Eldon doesn't argue that T- forms are contracts but that the act of
filing them presumes that you are subject to the laws that govern them
and that because of this, there has been a change in your status by
way of you being subject. Change of status can only come about in one
of two ways, formal or assumed contract.
>
>
>
Smokin'
> Blade] These guys intentionally misrepresent the detaxcanada program.
> Eldon doesn't argue that T- forms are contracts but that the act of
> filing them presumes that you are subject to the laws that govern them
> and that because of this, there has been a change in your status by
> way of you being subject. Change of status can only come about in one
> of two ways, formal or assumed contract.
The "act of *not* filing them" seems to presume something too. Someone is
being mighty presumptuous here...
;-)
Detax Unmasked
When pressed, Eldon is unable to present any evidence whatsoever that
it *is* so. Since it's he who's making the claim, it's up to him to
back it up, and he can't do that.
His "ideas" are baseless.
Apostle
engage in that contract with the gov't seem to be quite fine n dandy
Christopher Browne
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote in message
> news:EpoP8.23594$mh.9...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>>
>> "quantrell" <majorqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b39a930c.02061...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > > Doesn't he claim that the tax return is a type of contract? And
>> > > various other government forms?
>> >
>> > Q) Does he?
>>
>> I think he does.
>>
> Well, isn't it a contract?,
No, it's not, and while there are lots of attempts to _insinuate_ that
all sorts of things represent 'contracts,' there is a complete lack of
actual evidence that there actually are any such contracts.
They have to resort to misquoting dictionaries or making up references
to things in books where no copies are actually available that say the
things that they claim are said.
But by far the best way to characterize it is that it is necessary to
"insinuate" that various documents are considered to be contracts.
It's all a self-fulfilling prophecy:
If you _want_ to believe that something is a contract, then you can
believe it to be so, and the result is that (quel surpris) you wind up
believing that it is a contract, which was what you wanted to do in
the first place.
And all it really proves is that people are quite capable of believing
whatever things they find it convenient to believe.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
Smokin'
"Christopher Browne" <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:aeo5qd$8oaat$1...@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
> > Well, isn't it a contract?,
>
> No, it's not, and while there are lots of attempts to _insinuate_ that
> all sorts of things represent 'contracts,' there is a complete lack of
> actual evidence that there actually are any such contracts.
Okay. So, filling in and signing the form does not actually obligate anyone
to anything?
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
> "Diablo" <irc-d...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:160620021555411308%irc-d...@shaw.ca...
>
> > It's called DetaxCanada
> > http://www.detaxcanada.org/index1.htm
> >
> > Here are some quotes from the opening page...
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > Just Say "NO!" To
> > INCOME TAX
> > ************
>
> That seems simple enough, and certainly not any sort of scam.
>
> > ŠDetaxCanadaŽ
> >
> > -----------
> > THE PROVEN DETAX PROGRAM
> > (16 YEARS OF EFFECTIVE USAGE)
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> > THAT TEACHES YOU HOW TO:
> >
> > * QUIT FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> > * QUIT PAYING INCOME TAX
> > [ IN CANADA ]
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> > * NULLIFY CCRA (Rev Can)
> > ASSESSMENTS AND LEVIES
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> > PERMANENTLY - EFFECTIVELY - LAWFULLY
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> I notice that it says "LAWFULLY" instead of "LEGALLY". That's a sign that
> author has some understanding of the difference.
Not likely. You give Warman too much credit.
> > A Word About The Price Of My Detax Program . . .
> >
> > The DetaxCanada program is FREE!
> > This is NOT a commercial venture.
>
> So... he isn't even charging for this?????
No, but he is collecting "donations" to pay his expenses.
> > WE NEED A CANADIAN MAGNA CARTA
> >
> > The "detax" method of "Just Say NO!" is one of several "NOs" we need to
> > use in the Mahatma Ghandi method of confronting and defeating this
> > despotic and impostor government; and, to regain our sovereign status
> > as Sons of God living on planet Earth.
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> > Learning about the Common Law, and our Common Law heritage is a
> > definite requirement for those Canadians who would participate in the
> > recovery of our Canada as a free country for ourselves and our
> > posterity.
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> > The assumed incorporation contract with the Crown changing your status
> > toa person - a fictional character, and thus a "taxpayer", is a
> > "voidable" contract that ceases to exist if a subject Canadian uses
> > lawful methods to void that voidable contract.
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> Maybe that's true?
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
> > > Learn the facts about Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
> > > http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/
>
> Well... we seem t have a clash of opinions. Who is right?
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/00-CV-14232.html
[21] I find that a "person" as defined in s. 248(l) of the Income Tax Act
includes both a natural person and an artificial person. It
follows that the applicant is a "person" and a "taxpayer". I also
find that he is a person "resident" in Canada. Either a corporation
or a person may be "resident" or, indeed, for other legal purposes
"domiciled", in Canada or elsewhere. As a "person", the
applicant has the, same rights and obligations as any other
"person" under the Income Tax Act. His obligations include the filing of
annual income tax returns and the payment of any income tax owing
under his returns.
[22] The more fundamental submission by the applicant, that payment of income
tax is a voluntary act of the taxpayer in the name
of a contract,was not fully developed before me by Mr. Lindsay in a
legal sense. Rather, the proposition seems to be taken as
self-evident. The apparent failure of the Agency to deny the
proposition is inconclusive. Rule 25.07(2) of the Ontario Rules of
Civil Procedure, to which Mr. Lindsay referred me, applies only to
pleadings in an action; not to application records or factums.
The Latin maxims upon which the applicant relies on this branch of
his case are devoid of any context that would make them
applicable to this application.
[23] The Income Tax Act is valid legislation enacted by the Parliament of Canada
and applicable in accordance with its terms. It is
a public Act of Parliament and not a private Act as suggested by
the applicant. I have already expressed my view that the
applicant is one of the "persons" to whom the Act applies .(para.
[22] above). In my view, there is no support in "the common
law, aka the rule of law" for the extremely broad proposition that
all taxes are voluntary. The rule of law refers to the supremacy
of law over the exercise of arbitrary power, JA. Corry & JE.
Hodgetts, Democratic Government & Politics, (1959) 3rd Ed., page
96. The Income Tax Act is a law of general application enacted by
an elected legislature. It does not represent an exercise of
arbitrary power.
[24] The applicant also raised objections as to the constitutional validity of
the federal legislation under which the governments of
Canada and its provinces have entered into tax collection
arrangements whereby Canada collects income tax on behalf of itself
and the provinces. He said that this legislation is invalid as a
delegation of legislative powers by the provinces. This argument has
been rejected by the courts in Winterhaven Stables Ltd. v. Canada
(Attorney General), [1998] A.C. No. 924 (Alta.C.A.) and
other cases.
[25] Finally, the applicant objected to the Form of the Requirement
to Pay (Form T1118B) issued by the Agency to the Board is
on a number of grounds, including the absence of a signature by the
Director-Taxation.
I have considered his objections and find no merit in them. I find
that the Requirement to Pay valid and enforceable against the
applicant.
[26] Accordingly, this application is dismissed with costs fixed at
$500 and payable to the Agency. An order will issue requiring
the Board to remit to the Agency all amounts now or in future held
in trust by the Board under the order made by Kealay J. on
June 22, 2000.
Released: August 31, 2000
COURT FILE NO.: 00-CV- 14232 DATE: 20000831
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Thomas Kennedy
Applicant
and -
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Ottawa- Carleton District
School Board
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Sedgwick J.
--
"A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses;
it is an idea that possesses the mind." Robert Bolton
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
sse...@mindless.com
Smokin'
inclined to stop funding a corrupt regime.
"Criswell The Psychic Weatherman" <sse...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:3D0FA81B...@mindless.com...
Detax Unmasked
>Oh well. I guess that leaves only "civil disobedience" for people who are
>inclined to stop funding a corrupt regime.
One could attempt to oust the "corrupt regime" and replace it with a
regime to one's liking through the use of the electoral process, but
given Canada's history, and especially its recent history, that is
highly unlikely.
Constitutional reform in Canada seems to be virtually impossible, so
that idea's out.
Armed rebellion is a tested and proven method of changing governments,
but it's *very* messy, and doesn't necessarily result in the
government one wants.
So I guess civil disobedience is all that's left. Just make sure it
is done in an ethical manner, ie., don't bitch when The Man carts you
off to jail.
====
Detax Unmasked
Actually, you were obligated to fill in and sign the form before you
did so. It's called "the rule of law", and it's how civil societies
remain civil societies.
If you don't like the law, that's a different story.
Smokin'
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher Browne" <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote in message
> >news:aeo5qd$8oaat$1...@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >> > Well, isn't it a contract?,
> >>
> >> No, it's not, and while there are lots of attempts to _insinuate_ that
> >> all sorts of things represent 'contracts,' there is a complete lack of
> >> actual evidence that there actually are any such contracts.
> >
> >Okay. So, filling in and signing the form does not actually obligate
anyone
> >to anything?
>
> Actually, you were obligated to fill in and sign the form before you
> did so. It's called "the rule of law", and it's how civil societies
> remain civil societies.
I am not aware of any such obligation. Arbitrarily saddling people with
obligations is not the route to civil anything.
> If you don't like the law, that's a different story.
I think there is a difference between "the law" and "edicts of parliament".
I like the law just fine, but not every edict of parliament is Just.
Conscientious opposition to unjust edicts of parliament is one method by
which civil societies remain civil societies. According to what I've read
here, Lavigne and Warman et al have exhausted all potential court/legal
avenues of opposition and it is now time to move to civil disobedience.
Merlin
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>
> >Oh well. I guess that leaves only "civil disobedience" for people who are
> >inclined to stop funding a corrupt regime.
>
> One could attempt to oust the "corrupt regime" and replace it with a
> regime to one's liking through the use of the electoral process, but
> given Canada's history, and especially its recent history, that is
> highly unlikely.
Indeed.
> Constitutional reform in Canada seems to be virtually impossible, so
> that idea's out.
True.
> Armed rebellion is a tested and proven method of changing governments,
> but it's *very* messy, and doesn't necessarily result in the
> government one wants.
Besides, it kinda defeats the purpose, which is to get rid of violent
power-drunk assholes who force people to obey and substitute a government
that actually does function with the consent of the governed.
> So I guess civil disobedience is all that's left. Just make sure it
> is done in an ethical manner, ie., don't bitch when The Man carts you
> off to jail.
I think the "bitching" is a big part of what civil disobedience is all
about. People should bitch - long and loud - about injustice, and hope that
other people care enough to notice their sacrifice of liberty for the
greater good.
Detax Unmasked
>
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d0fb74e...@news.his.com...
>> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher Browne" <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote in message
>> >news:aeo5qd$8oaat$1...@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
>> >
>> >> > Well, isn't it a contract?,
>> >>
>> >> No, it's not, and while there are lots of attempts to _insinuate_ that
>> >> all sorts of things represent 'contracts,' there is a complete lack of
>> >> actual evidence that there actually are any such contracts.
>> >
>> >Okay. So, filling in and signing the form does not actually obligate
>anyone
>> >to anything?
>>
>> Actually, you were obligated to fill in and sign the form before you
>> did so. It's called "the rule of law", and it's how civil societies
>> remain civil societies.
>
>I am not aware of any such obligation.
Meaning no disrespet, but I don't believe you. You might be trying to
*ignore* such obligation because it does not please you, or you might
be refusing to recognize such obligation as an act of civil
disobedience, but I do not find it credible that you, or Lavigne, or
Warman, or anybody else is not *aware* of the obligation.
>Arbitrarily saddling people with
>obligations is not the route to civil anything.
It wasn't arbitrary. Maybe that's where you're confused.
>> If you don't like the law, that's a different story.
>
>I think there is a difference between "the law" and "edicts of parliament".
Not really.
>I like the law just fine, but not every edict of parliament is Just.
Nothing's perfect ...
>Conscientious opposition to unjust edicts of parliament is one method by
>which civil societies remain civil societies.
Fine, but there's a big difference between claiming that a law is
unjust and claiming that there is no such law.
>According to what I've read
>here, Lavigne and Warman et al have exhausted all potential court/legal
>avenues of opposition and it is now time to move to civil disobedience.
That's not exactly correct. There is at least one other line of legal
argument of which I am aware that *could* be pursued, but the
individual best equipped to do so does not have the financial
resources, and the detax/refusetax types will have nothing to do with
it.
Which suggests to me that Warman and Lavigne have other agendas.
Detax Unmasked
>I think the "bitching" is a big part of what civil disobedience is all
>about. People should bitch - long and loud - about injustice, and hope that
>other people care enough to notice their sacrifice of liberty for the
>greater good.
Let me give you an example to show you what I meant:
A few years ago, there were pretty continuous demonstrations in
Washington, DC against the apartheid that existed in South Africa at
the time. Now the District has a law prohibiting demonstrations
within 100 feet of an embassy, and this law was borken, day after day,
by celebrities from various walks of life who would cross the line,
walk up to the front door of the Embassy of South Africa, and proclaim
their objection to this unjust regime. They were duly arrested and
charged with violating the law regarding demonstrating too close to an
embassy. And they pled Guilty, too. They didn't bitch about the law.
They didn't whine about the law. They didn't complain about the law.
They went prepared to take whatever medicine was dished out because
their cause was worth it to them. And the pressure that this put on
the government of the day in South Africa to end apartheid was
enormous.
*That* is civil disobedience.
What Warman proposes doesn't even come close.
Lavigne could come close, but he sells cards at a profit intended to
cheat honest merchants and makes false claims about his court case,
and that crosses the ethical line.
Smokin'
> >> Actually, you were obligated to fill in and sign the form before you
> >> did so. It's called "the rule of law", and it's how civil societies
> >> remain civil societies.
> >
> >I am not aware of any such obligation.
>
> Meaning no disrespet, but I don't believe you. You might be trying to
> *ignore* such obligation because it does not please you, or you might
> be refusing to recognize such obligation as an act of civil
> disobedience, but I do not find it credible that you, or Lavigne, or
> Warman, or anybody else is not *aware* of the obligation.
I understand that there are people who would like me to believe that there
is such an obligation, but I am not aware that there really is such an
obligation. I think it might be one of those things that "everyone knows",
but isn't actually true. Perhaps like believing the world is flat, which at
one time most people believed. Alternatively, it could be a deliberate bit
of flimflamery perpetuated by people who hope to gain from it.
I really don't know, but I do know that people can (and do) make claims
about "obligations" that don't really exist - hoping to benefit. Some
examples are those companies that send out phoney invoices, hoping that
company AP clerks will mistakenly pay them. And many do pay them, thinking
they are legitimate obligations.
> >Arbitrarily saddling people with
> >obligations is not the route to civil anything.
>
> It wasn't arbitrary. Maybe that's where you're confused.
I don't think I am confused. I simply do not remember ever accepting the
obligation that you claim exists.
> >> If you don't like the law, that's a different story.
> >
> >I think there is a difference between "the law" and "edicts of
parliament".
>
> Not really.
Oh come now... there is no shortage of examples where edicts of parliament
have been found unlawful.
> >I like the law just fine, but not every edict of parliament is Just.
>
> Nothing's perfect ...
That's true.
> >Conscientious opposition to unjust edicts of parliament is one method by
> >which civil societies remain civil societies.
>
> Fine, but there's a big difference between claiming that a law is
> unjust and claiming that there is no such law.
Not really. It is something of a philosophical argument, but an "Unjust Law"
is usually considered to be "of no force or effect". In a very real sense,
"Unjust Law" does not exist anywhere except in the mind of the government
members who created it. Like the man said, "The law must be moral". Not "can
be moral" or "should be moral".. it *must* be moral in order to truly be a
law.
> >According to what I've read
> >here, Lavigne and Warman et al have exhausted all potential court/legal
> >avenues of opposition and it is now time to move to civil disobedience.
>
> That's not exactly correct. There is at least one other line of legal
> argument of which I am aware that *could* be pursued, but the
> individual best equipped to do so does not have the financial
> resources, and the detax/refusetax types will have nothing to do with
> it.
>
What is that line?
> Which suggests to me that Warman and Lavigne have other agendas.
Maybe. I don't know.
Detax Unmasked
This line of argument seems to assume that one gets to pick and choose
which laws to obey or not obey. Not a notion conducive to maintaining
a civil society, in my opinion.
And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
up as you go along.
>> >> If you don't like the law, that's a different story.
>> >
>> >I think there is a difference between "the law" and "edicts of
>parliament".
>>
>> Not really.
>
>Oh come now... there is no shortage of examples where edicts of parliament
>have been found unlawful.
That's right: the law was found to be unlawful. What that
demonstrates is that there are levels of law.
>> >I like the law just fine, but not every edict of parliament is Just.
>>
>> Nothing's perfect ...
>
>That's true.
>
>> >Conscientious opposition to unjust edicts of parliament is one method by
>> >which civil societies remain civil societies.
>>
>> Fine, but there's a big difference between claiming that a law is
>> unjust and claiming that there is no such law.
>
>Not really. It is something of a philosophical argument, but an "Unjust Law"
>is usually considered to be "of no force or effect". In a very real sense,
>"Unjust Law" does not exist anywhere except in the mind of the government
>members who created it. Like the man said, "The law must be moral". Not "can
>be moral" or "should be moral".. it *must* be moral in order to truly be a
>law.
I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>> >According to what I've read
>> >here, Lavigne and Warman et al have exhausted all potential court/legal
>> >avenues of opposition and it is now time to move to civil disobedience.
>>
>> That's not exactly correct. There is at least one other line of legal
>> argument of which I am aware that *could* be pursued, but the
>> individual best equipped to do so does not have the financial
>> resources, and the detax/refusetax types will have nothing to do with
>> it.
>>
>
>What is that line?
That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
income taxes.
>> Which suggests to me that Warman and Lavigne have other agendas.
>
>Maybe. I don't know.
Apostle
> >> >> did so. It's called "the rule of law", and it's how civil societies
> >> >> remain civil societies.
> >> >
> >> >I am not aware of any such obligation.
It's kinda sad that many feel it will all of our
children/grandchildren/great grandchildren will be 'obligated' in this
fashion even though they are not yet born....
> >> Meaning no disrespet, but I don't believe you. You might be trying to
> >> *ignore* such obligation because it does not please you, or you might
> >> be refusing to recognize such obligation as an act of civil
> >> disobedience, but I do not find it credible that you, or Lavigne, or
> >> Warman, or anybody else is not *aware* of the obligation.
Hmm, I am 'aware' that almost all unquestionably think they are obligated,
does this make it so?
> >I understand that there are people who would like me to believe that
there
> >is such an obligation, but I am not aware that there really is such an
> >obligation. I think it might be one of those things that "everyone
knows",
> >but isn't actually true. Perhaps like believing the world is flat, which
at
> >one time most people believed. Alternatively, it could be a deliberate
bit
> >of flimflamery perpetuated by people who hope to gain from it.
Agreed.
> >I really don't know, but I do know that people can (and do) make claims
> >about "obligations" that don't really exist - hoping to benefit. Some
> >examples are those companies that send out phoney invoices, hoping that
> >company AP clerks will mistakenly pay them. And many do pay them,
thinking
> >they are legitimate obligations.
Hahah! i was thinking of doing this, as a scientific study of course :-)
> >>>Arbitrarily saddling people with
> >> >obligations is not the route to civil anything.
Agreed.
> >> It wasn't arbitrary. Maybe that's where you're confused.
When the income tax act was first enacted(to pay the cost of wwI off) it was
to be a *temporary*
tax, but low and behold it is still here...
> >I don't think I am confused. I simply do not remember ever accepting the
> >obligation that you claim exists.
Nor, I
> This line of argument seems to assume that one gets to pick and choose
> which laws to obey or not obey. Not a notion conducive to maintaining
> a civil society, in my opinion.
In a just society it certainly does. - if people are willing to obey unjust
laws, where does that lead?, just look to the south of us and we can take
our cue from there...
> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
> up as you go along.
Who mentioned god?
> That's right: the law was found to be unlawful. What that
> demonstrates is that there are levels of law.
If a law is unlawful it demonstrates that ther are levels of law??? what is
that supposed to mean??
> >> Nothing's perfect ...
> >That's true.
Quite right.
> >> >Conscientious opposition to unjust edicts of parliament is one method
by
> >> >which civil societies remain civil societies.
> >>
> >> Fine, but there's a big difference between claiming that a law is
> >> unjust and claiming that there is no such law.
> >
> >Not really. It is something of a philosophical argument, but an "Unjust
Law"
> >is usually considered to be "of no force or effect". In a very real
sense,
> >"Unjust Law" does not exist anywhere except in the mind of the government
> >members who created it. Like the man said, "The law must be moral". Not
"can
> >be moral" or "should be moral".. it *must* be moral in order to truly be
a
> >law.
Agreed.
> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
But should we obey this unjust law?
> >> >According to what I've read
> >> >here, Lavigne and Warman et al have exhausted all potential
court/legal
> >> >avenues of opposition and it is now time to move to civil
disobedience.
> >>
> >> That's not exactly correct. There is at least one other line of legal
> >> argument of which I am aware that *could* be pursued, but the
> >> individual best equipped to do so does not have the financial
> >> resources, and the detax/refusetax types will have nothing to do with
> >> it.
> >>
> >
> >What is that line?
>
> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
> income taxes.
What about the fact that income tax was only to be temprorary?\
> >> Which suggests to me that Warman and Lavigne have other agendas.
> >
> >Maybe. I don't know.
>
Well, if we think hard on that one, doesn't everyone? It's like sayin
everyone has to take a piss.
Apostle
Smokin'
> >I don't think I am confused. I simply do not remember ever accepting the
> >obligation that you claim exists.
>
> This line of argument seems to assume that one gets to pick and choose
> which laws to obey or not obey. Not a notion conducive to maintaining
> a civil society, in my opinion.
You are mistaken. People actually do "pick and choose" which laws to obey,
and rightly so. That is the only way that bad laws can be eliminated.
In any case, I was not referring to any picking and choosing, I was
referring to an obligation that I am supposed to be under. I do not remember
ever accepting this obligation.
> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
> up as you go along.
Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.
> >Oh come now... there is no shortage of examples where edicts of
parliament
> >have been found unlawful.
>
> That's right: the law was found to be unlawful. What that
> demonstrates is that there are levels of law.
Levels? What levels?
What it demonstrates is that some legislation is wrong, unlawful, stupid,
ill-advised and "of no force or effect". Legislation that is "of no force or
effect" can be (and should be) ignored.
> >> Fine, but there's a big difference between claiming that a law is
> >> unjust and claiming that there is no such law.
> >
> >Not really. It is something of a philosophical argument, but an "Unjust
Law"
> >is usually considered to be "of no force or effect". In a very real
sense,
> >"Unjust Law" does not exist anywhere except in the mind of the government
> >members who created it. Like the man said, "The law must be moral". Not
"can
> >be moral" or "should be moral".. it *must* be moral in order to truly be
a
> >law.
>
> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
Contrary to the beliefs of certain anti-intellectual louts, philosophy is
completely about reality.
An unjust law is "of no force or effect" and repeal or 'striking down' is
simply an acknowledgement of that fact.
> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
> income taxes.
As if anyone cares what the British parliament intended 100 years ago....
Smokin'
> "Merlin" <merlin@ round table.org> wrote:
>
> >I think the "bitching" is a big part of what civil disobedience is all
> >about. People should bitch - long and loud - about injustice, and hope
that
> >other people care enough to notice their sacrifice of liberty for the
> >greater good.
>
> Let me give you an example to show you what I meant:
>
> A few years ago, there were pretty continuous demonstrations in
> Washington, DC against the apartheid that existed in South Africa at
> the time. Now the District has a law prohibiting demonstrations
> within 100 feet of an embassy, and this law was borken, day after day,
> by celebrities from various walks of life who would cross the line,
> walk up to the front door of the Embassy of South Africa, and proclaim
> their objection to this unjust regime. They were duly arrested and
> charged with violating the law regarding demonstrating too close to an
> embassy. And they pled Guilty, too. They didn't bitch about the law.
> They didn't whine about the law. They didn't complain about the law.
> They went prepared to take whatever medicine was dished out because
> their cause was worth it to them. And the pressure that this put on
> the government of the day in South Africa to end apartheid was
> enormous.
>
> *That* is civil disobedience.
That was a publicity stunt by Hollywood personalities, trying to get their
names in the news.
> What Warman proposes doesn't even come close.
>
> Lavigne could come close, but he sells cards at a profit intended to
> cheat honest merchants and makes false claims about his court case,
> and that crosses the ethical line.
I see. But your Hollywood stars didn't gain anything from the publicity?
Everyone has an angle. Get over it.
Detax Unmasked
>
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d1079e...@news.his.com...
>
>> >I don't think I am confused. I simply do not remember ever accepting the
>> >obligation that you claim exists.
>>
>> This line of argument seems to assume that one gets to pick and choose
>> which laws to obey or not obey. Not a notion conducive to maintaining
>> a civil society, in my opinion.
>
>You are mistaken. People actually do "pick and choose" which laws to obey,
>and rightly so. That is the only way that bad laws can be eliminated.
So then it's Okay with you if I rob, or murder, or rape because I
choose not to obey the laws prohibiting those behaviors.
That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
>In any case, I was not referring to any picking and choosing, I was
>referring to an obligation that I am supposed to be under. I do not remember
>ever accepting this obligation.
So then it's Okay with you if I rob, or murder, or rape because I have
not consented to obey the laws prohibiting those behaviors.
That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
>> up as you go along.
>
>Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.
Good; then it's not a problem.
>> >Oh come now... there is no shortage of examples where edicts of
>parliament
>> >have been found unlawful.
>>
>> That's right: the law was found to be unlawful. What that
>> demonstrates is that there are levels of law.
>
>Levels? What levels?
Y'all got levels of gummint, y'all got corresponding levels of law.
>> >> Fine, but there's a big difference between claiming that a law is
>> >> unjust and claiming that there is no such law.
>> >
>> >Not really. It is something of a philosophical argument, but an "Unjust
>Law"
>> >is usually considered to be "of no force or effect". In a very real
>sense,
>> >"Unjust Law" does not exist anywhere except in the mind of the government
>> >members who created it. Like the man said, "The law must be moral". Not
>"can
>> >be moral" or "should be moral".. it *must* be moral in order to truly be
>a
>> >law.
>>
>> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
>> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>
>Contrary to the beliefs of certain anti-intellectual louts, philosophy is
>completely about reality.
>An unjust law is "of no force or effect" and repeal or 'striking down' is
>simply an acknowledgement of that fact.
But until that happens, the law is still liable to be enforced; as
such, it certainly does have "force and effect."
You can express your opinion as to what laws have what force and
effect, but you don't get to decide, even for yourself.
>> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
>> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
>> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
>> income taxes.
>
>As if anyone cares what the British parliament intended 100 years ago....
Well, so much for the single best argument against the Federal income
tax that's ever been put forth on this newsgroup. The gummint wins
and you lose, all because you don't care.
Detax Unmasked
>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
>> up as you go along.
>
>Who mentioned god?
It comes up regularly. Somebody claims that the one true law is
"god's law", as if that person's god is the one god accepted by all.
It's arrogant, disrespectful, and just plain wrong.
>> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
>> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>
>But should we obey this unjust law?
If one wishes to challenge what one believes to be an unjust law, one
may certainly do so. As I've said, civil disobedience has a long an
honorable history.
>> >> That's not exactly correct. There is at least one other line of legal
>> >> argument of which I am aware that *could* be pursued, but the
>> >> individual best equipped to do so does not have the financial
>> >> resources, and the detax/refusetax types will have nothing to do with
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What is that line?
>>
>> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
>> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
>> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
>> income taxes.
>
>What about the fact that income tax was only to be temprorary?\
It's my understanding that argument has been tried and has failed.
Detax Unmasked
Smokin'
> >You are mistaken. People actually do "pick and choose" which laws to
obey,
> >and rightly so. That is the only way that bad laws can be eliminated.
>
> So then it's Okay with you if I rob, or murder, or rape because I
> choose not to obey the laws prohibiting those behaviors.
Please try to read what was actually written, rather than imagining what was
written.
It is okay with me if you choose to reject the laws regarding those things.
Bear in mind that rejecting such laws means that you will neither obey them
nor be defended by them. You cannot have it both ways, where you don't have
to obey but still somehow get to be defended by the police and courts.
So, yes... please advise as to your acceptance or rejection of those laws.
> That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I did not say (or mean) what
you imagined.
> >In any case, I was not referring to any picking and choosing, I was
> >referring to an obligation that I am supposed to be under. I do not
remember
> >ever accepting this obligation.
>
> So then it's Okay with you if I rob, or murder, or rape because I have
> not consented to obey the laws prohibiting those behaviors.
>
> That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
No, it is what you imagined.
> >> >Oh come now... there is no shortage of examples where edicts of
> >parliament
> >> >have been found unlawful.
> >>
> >> That's right: the law was found to be unlawful. What that
> >> demonstrates is that there are levels of law.
> >
> >Levels? What levels?
>
> Y'all got levels of gummint, y'all got corresponding levels of law.
Well yes, but what has that got to do with unlawful edicts of parliament?
> >> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
> >> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
> >
> >Contrary to the beliefs of certain anti-intellectual louts, philosophy is
> >completely about reality.
> >An unjust law is "of no force or effect" and repeal or 'striking down' is
> >simply an acknowledgement of that fact.
>
> But until that happens, the law is still liable to be enforced; as
> such, it certainly does have "force and effect."
>
> You can express your opinion as to what laws have what force and
> effect, but you don't get to decide, even for yourself.
I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people doing
the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to assume
that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators are
superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
> >> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
> >> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
> >> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
> >> income taxes.
> >
> >As if anyone cares what the British parliament intended 100 years ago....
>
> Well, so much for the single best argument against the Federal income
> tax that's ever been put forth on this newsgroup. The gummint wins
> and you lose, all because you don't care.
What possible difference could it make? It's much simpler to ignore the
unjust edicts. More people should.
Apostle
> >> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
> >> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
> >> income taxes.
> >
> >What about the fact that income tax was only to be temprorary?\
>
> It's my understanding that argument has been tried and has failed.
>
Apostle
Here in BC(where i am) Marijuanna is an illegal substance, yet people smoke
freely all about townn, in fact, if one wants to purchase they need only go
down to city hall(well the grassy area beside it)
But, as no police officers will arrest those smoking, while it is
technically illegal, it is in fact no more so.
here is an example forya!
Apostle
> >That was a publicity stunt by Hollywood personalities, trying to get
their
> >names in the news.
>
> How do you know?
>
Detax Unmasked
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d10d32...@news.his.com...
>
>> >You are mistaken. People actually do "pick and choose" which laws to
>obey,
>> >and rightly so. That is the only way that bad laws can be eliminated.
>>
>> So then it's Okay with you if I rob, or murder, or rape because I
>> choose not to obey the laws prohibiting those behaviors.
>
>Please try to read what was actually written, rather than imagining what was
>written.
A core principle of interpersonal communication is that the sender of
the message determines its intent, and the receiver of the message
detgermines its meaning.
>> That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
>
>I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I did not say (or mean) what
>you imagined.
You said what you intended to say; you meant what *I* say you meant.
I am sure that this will gall the living hell out of you, but that's
the way interpersonal communication works.
>> >> >Oh come now... there is no shortage of examples where edicts of
>> >parliament
>> >> >have been found unlawful.
>> >>
>> >> That's right: the law was found to be unlawful. What that
>> >> demonstrates is that there are levels of law.
>> >
>> >Levels? What levels?
>>
>> Y'all got levels of gummint, y'all got corresponding levels of law.
>
>Well yes, but what has that got to do with unlawful edicts of parliament?
By what are laws enacted by parliament judged to be unjust? I mean,
I'm not gonna conclude that a law is unjust simply because you say so.
>> >> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
>> >> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>> >
>> >Contrary to the beliefs of certain anti-intellectual louts, philosophy is
>> >completely about reality.
>> >An unjust law is "of no force or effect" and repeal or 'striking down' is
>> >simply an acknowledgement of that fact.
>>
>> But until that happens, the law is still liable to be enforced; as
>> such, it certainly does have "force and effect."
>>
>> You can express your opinion as to what laws have what force and
>> effect, but you don't get to decide, even for yourself.
>
>I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people doing
>the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to assume
>that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators are
>superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
>> >> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
>> >> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
>> >> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
>> >> income taxes.
>> >
>> >As if anyone cares what the British parliament intended 100 years ago....
>>
>> Well, so much for the single best argument against the Federal income
>> tax that's ever been put forth on this newsgroup. The gummint wins
>> and you lose, all because you don't care.
>
>What possible difference could it make? It's much simpler to ignore the
>unjust edicts. More people should.
Until the guys with the guns show up and cart you off to debtors'
prison, at which point it might be too late to ignore anything.
Detax Unmasked
>> >
>> >That was a publicity stunt by Hollywood personalities, trying to get
>their
>> >names in the news.
>>
>> How do you know?
>>
>Because that is what hollywood is about my friend.....
I see. You don't know; you assume. Okay, we all do it.
Smokin'
> You said what you intended to say; you meant what *I* say you meant.
> I am sure that this will gall the living hell out of you, but that's
> the way interpersonal communication works.
Doesn't gall me at all.
> >> Y'all got levels of gummint, y'all got corresponding levels of law.
> >
> >Well yes, but what has that got to do with unlawful edicts of parliament?
>
> By what are laws enacted by parliament judged to be unjust? I mean,
> I'm not gonna conclude that a law is unjust simply because you say so.
Ah... that is the nub of it, yes?
The short answer is: an unjust law is a law that is not moral.
It might be worthwhile to discuss the correctness of that assertion, because
the long answer is much much longer. ;-)
> >I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people
doing
> >the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to
assume
> >that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators are
> >superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
>
> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
No more so than policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators.
> Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
> most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
> dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
> is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
I am not an anarchist. At least, not by any of the usual definitions. If you
believe that only anarchists advocate consensual government and contract law
where government truly does have the consent of the governed, then by that
definition I would be an anarchist. If we are going to bend the definitions
and choose extremes in that way, then I would be equally justified in
labelling you an advocate of police-state tyranny.
Is that the game you wish to play?
> >What possible difference could it make? It's much simpler to ignore the
> >unjust edicts. More people should.
>
> Until the guys with the guns show up and cart you off to debtors'
> prison, at which point it might be too late to ignore anything.
People tried to put me debtors prison for nearly twenty years. They came
close to succeeding once or twice, but even prison would not have changed my
mind. "Debt" cannot really be created out of thin air by government (or
judicial) decree. Only a tyrant imposes debt-obligations in that manner, and
free men will rightly oppose it.
Detax Unmasked
>> >> Y'all got levels of gummint, y'all got corresponding levels of law.
>> >
>> >Well yes, but what has that got to do with unlawful edicts of parliament?
>>
>> By what are laws enacted by parliament judged to be unjust? I mean,
>> I'm not gonna conclude that a law is unjust simply because you say so.
>
>Ah... that is the nub of it, yes?
>
>The short answer is: an unjust law is a law that is not moral.
And who or what decides whether or not a law is moral? You're
implying a standard there.
>It might be worthwhile to discuss the correctness of that assertion, because
>the long answer is much much longer. ;-)
>
>
>> >I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people
>doing
>> >the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to
>assume
>> >that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators are
>> >superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
>>
>> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
>
>No more so than policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators.
Much more.
>> Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
>> most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
>> dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
>> is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
>
>I am not an anarchist. At least, not by any of the usual definitions. If you
>believe that only anarchists advocate consensual government and contract law
>where government truly does have the consent of the governed, then by that
>definition I would be an anarchist. If we are going to bend the definitions
>and choose extremes in that way, then I would be equally justified in
>labelling you an advocate of police-state tyranny.
>
>Is that the game you wish to play?
Nope. And as for consensual government, Canada doesn't have it,
hasn't had it, and isn't gonna have it in the foreseeable future.
That's unfortunate, but I think that's the way it is.
Smokin'
> >> By what are laws enacted by parliament judged to be unjust? I mean,
> >> I'm not gonna conclude that a law is unjust simply because you say so.
> >
> >Ah... that is the nub of it, yes?
> >
> >The short answer is: an unjust law is a law that is not moral.
>
> And who or what decides whether or not a law is moral? You're
> implying a standard there.
As I said, the long answer is much much longer. Setting aside your question
for the moment (we can come back to it) do you agree with my assertion? If
we can (somehow) determine that a particular law is immoral, can we then say
with some certaintly that the particular law is unjust and "of no force or
effect"?
> >It might be worthwhile to discuss the correctness of that assertion,
because
> >the long answer is much much longer. ;-)
> >
> >
> >> >I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people
> >doing
> >> >the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to
> >assume
> >> >that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators
are
> >> >superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
> >>
> >> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
> >
> >No more so than policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators.
>
> Much more.
How so? Obviously, legislators have opinions about which laws are worthwhile
and which laws are not. Their opinions become the law - that's what they do
for a living.
Policemen and lawyers and judges often use discretion when enforcing the
law, where their opinions are the basis of enforcement - or non-enforcement.
Is there some good reason to assume that their opinions are right and your
opinions (or mine) are wrong?
> >> Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
> >> most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
> >> dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
> >> is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
> >
> >I am not an anarchist. At least, not by any of the usual definitions. If
you
> >believe that only anarchists advocate consensual government and contract
law
> >where government truly does have the consent of the governed, then by
that
> >definition I would be an anarchist. If we are going to bend the
definitions
> >and choose extremes in that way, then I would be equally justified in
> >labelling you an advocate of police-state tyranny.
> >
> >Is that the game you wish to play?
>
> Nope.
Good. Then we will have no more dismissive labelling nonsense.
> And as for consensual government, Canada doesn't have it,
> hasn't had it, and isn't gonna have it in the foreseeable future.
With your sort of defeated attitude, it wil be like that forever. What the
hell is wrong with people inthis country? Do they put castration chemicals
in the water?
> That's unfortunate, but I think that's the way it is.
If your position is that Canada is a type of tyranny then you should say so.
If your position is that this is acceptable, then I will respectfully
disagree. Furthermore, I will suggest that knowingly accepting tyranny is
irresponsible and dangerous.
Detax Unmasked
>
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d1104db...@news.his.com...
>
>> >> By what are laws enacted by parliament judged to be unjust? I mean,
>> >> I'm not gonna conclude that a law is unjust simply because you say so.
>> >
>> >Ah... that is the nub of it, yes?
>> >
>> >The short answer is: an unjust law is a law that is not moral.
>>
>> And who or what decides whether or not a law is moral? You're
>> implying a standard there.
>
>As I said, the long answer is much much longer. Setting aside your question
>for the moment (we can come back to it) do you agree with my assertion? If
>we can (somehow) determine that a particular law is immoral, can we then say
>with some certaintly that the particular law is unjust and "of no force or
>effect"?
It really does depend on what one means by "moral" and "immoral". You
and I might agree, for example, that slavery is immoral, and that laws
establishing slavery were immoral, while disagreeing on the morality
(or lack thereof) of other laws, because we have different ethical
systems, and thus different definitions of "moral" and "immoral".
>> >It might be worthwhile to discuss the correctness of that assertion,
>because
>> >the long answer is much much longer. ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> >> >I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people
>> >doing
>> >> >the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to
>> >assume
>> >> >that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators
>are
>> >> >superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
>> >>
>> >> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
>> >
>> >No more so than policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators.
>>
>> Much more.
>
>How so? Obviously, legislators have opinions about which laws are worthwhile
>and which laws are not. Their opinions become the law - that's what they do
>for a living.
>
>Policemen and lawyers and judges often use discretion when enforcing the
>law, where their opinions are the basis of enforcement - or non-enforcement.
>Is there some good reason to assume that their opinions are right and your
>opinions (or mine) are wrong?
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I come from a country where
legislators represent their constituents, whereas you come from a
country where they do not.
>> >> Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
>> >> most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
>> >> dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
>> >> is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
>> >
>> >I am not an anarchist. At least, not by any of the usual definitions. If
>you
>> >believe that only anarchists advocate consensual government and contract
>law
>> >where government truly does have the consent of the governed, then by
>that
>> >definition I would be an anarchist. If we are going to bend the
>definitions
>> >and choose extremes in that way, then I would be equally justified in
>> >labelling you an advocate of police-state tyranny.
>> >
>> >Is that the game you wish to play?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Good. Then we will have no more dismissive labelling nonsense.
>
>> And as for consensual government, Canada doesn't have it,
>> hasn't had it, and isn't gonna have it in the foreseeable future.
>
>With your sort of defeated attitude, it wil be like that forever.
I'm just being realistic about it. Canada was given a top-down system
of government, in which the moral authority flows not from the people
to the government through the people's elected representatives, but
from the sovreign through the head of state to the government in the
person of the Prime Minister, with the people not being part of the
equation at all. Now then, how you gonna change that? Armed
rebellion? Works, but it's messy. Constitutional amendments? Not a
chance, given the current constitutional system that makes such
amendments virtually impossible. Civil disobedience? Could work, but
as you point out below and as Eldon Warman seems to be figuring out,
most of your countrypeople simply do not give a damn.
>What the
>hell is wrong with people inthis country? Do they put castration chemicals
>in the water?
Not for me to say.
>> That's unfortunate, but I think that's the way it is.
>
>If your position is that Canada is a type of tyranny then you should say so.
Canada is a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, with all of the
faults and virtues inherent therein.
>If your position is that this is acceptable, then I will respectfully
>disagree.
It's not for me to say whether it is or is not acceptable.
Smokin'
> >As I said, the long answer is much much longer. Setting aside your
question
> >for the moment (we can come back to it) do you agree with my assertion?
If
> >we can (somehow) determine that a particular law is immoral, can we then
say
> >with some certaintly that the particular law is unjust and "of no force
or
> >effect"?
>
> It really does depend on what one means by "moral" and "immoral".
Of course it does, which is why I suggested we set that particular detail
aside for the moment.
> You
> and I might agree, for example, that slavery is immoral, and that laws
> establishing slavery were immoral, while disagreeing on the morality
> (or lack thereof) of other laws, because we have different ethical
> systems, and thus different definitions of "moral" and "immoral".
Absolutely. At this point I am happy to establish that there is some basic
valid reason for rejecting certain laws even if it is only theoretical. You
might be surprised at the number of people who think that the law cannot be
challenged in this manner.
> >> >> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
> >> >
> >> >No more so than policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators.
> >>
> >> Much more.
> >
> >How so? Obviously, legislators have opinions about which laws are
worthwhile
> >and which laws are not. Their opinions become the law - that's what they
do
> >for a living.
> >
> >Policemen and lawyers and judges often use discretion when enforcing the
> >law, where their opinions are the basis of enforcement - or
non-enforcement.
> >Is there some good reason to assume that their opinions are right and
your
> >opinions (or mine) are wrong?
>
> Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I come from a country where
> legislators represent their constituents, whereas you come from a
> country where they do not.
Really? What country is that? I might want to move there.
> >> And as for consensual government, Canada doesn't have it,
> >> hasn't had it, and isn't gonna have it in the foreseeable future.
> >
> >With your sort of defeated attitude, it wil be like that forever.
>
> I'm just being realistic about it. Canada was given a top-down system
> of government, in which the moral authority flows not from the people
> to the government through the people's elected representatives, but
> from the sovreign through the head of state to the government in the
> person of the Prime Minister, with the people not being part of the
> equation at all. Now then, how you gonna change that? Armed
> rebellion? Works, but it's messy. Constitutional amendments? Not a
> chance, given the current constitutional system that makes such
> amendments virtually impossible. Civil disobedience? Could work, but
> as you point out below and as Eldon Warman seems to be figuring out,
> most of your countrypeople simply do not give a damn.
Yes, I agree with all that. Still, it is important for the few people who do
care about the country to do something. Like it or not, the "detax" approach
seems to be least offensive method of civil disobedience. Nobody gets hurt
too badly, it hits the tyrant in the pocketbook, and dissenters will at
least have the personal satisfaction of knowing that they are not funding
the corrupt crew of Ottawa buttheads any more than absolutely necessary. I
agree that it is not perfect (nothing is) but it seems to be the best option
for conscientious Canadians at this time.
> >What the
> >hell is wrong with people inthis country? Do they put castration
chemicals
> >in the water?
>
> Not for me to say.
I heard that the country's founding fathers contemplated statutory limits to
taxation, but decided that it wasn't necessary because the Canadian people
would rise up in rebellion if a corrupt government ever taxed them beyond
10% or so. What a sad mistake that was.
> >> That's unfortunate, but I think that's the way it is.
> >
> >If your position is that Canada is a type of tyranny then you should say
so.
>
> Canada is a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, with all of the
> faults and virtues inherent therein.
Technically, I think it is a parliamentary monarchy. I think we are
currently lacking a monarch, but that is another story.
> >If your position is that this is acceptable, then I will respectfully
> >disagree.
>
> It's not for me to say whether it is or is not acceptable.
It is not acceptable to me.
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 2:03 PM:
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3d1079e...@news.his.com...
>>
>>>> I don't think I am confused. I simply do not remember ever accepting the
>>>> obligation that you claim exists.
>>>
>>> This line of argument seems to assume that one gets to pick and choose
>>> which laws to obey or not obey. Not a notion conducive to maintaining
>>> a civil society, in my opinion.
>>
>> You are mistaken. People actually do "pick and choose" which laws to obey,
>> and rightly so. That is the only way that bad laws can be eliminated.
>
> So then it's Okay with you if I rob, or murder, or rape because I
> choose not to obey the laws prohibiting those behaviors.
>
Asia) That is a good twist. Where does Smokin even imply that? You are
should an immature game player. Yes you do have the right to choose that but
no where did it say it was okay to do. That is why when those that choose
not to follow the have lawyers that make sure they get away with it.
> That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
>
>> In any case, I was not referring to any picking and choosing, I was
>> referring to an obligation that I am supposed to be under. I do not remember
>> ever accepting this obligation.
>
> So then it's Okay with you if I rob, or murder, or rape because I have
> not consented to obey the laws prohibiting those behaviors.
>
Asia) You are just being stupid here
> That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
>
>>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
>>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
>>> up as you go along.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.
>
> Good; then it's not a problem.
>
Asia) Why, do you have a problem with God?
Asia) Section 52 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it doesn't
have any force or effect.
> You can express your opinion as to what laws have what force and
> effect, but you don't get to decide, even for yourself.
>
Asia) Bull
>>> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
>>> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
>>> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
>>> income taxes.
>>
>> As if anyone cares what the British parliament intended 100 years ago....
>
> Well, so much for the single best argument against the Federal income
> tax that's ever been put forth on this newsgroup. The gummint wins
> and you lose, all because you don't care.
>
Asia) What is it about winning and losing? This is not about one winning or
losing. It is not a game( though you treat it as such).
Smokin'
"Asia Svoren" <as...@asia.wox.org> wrote in message
news:B936A523.6428%as...@asia.wox.org...
> > That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
> >
> >>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
> >>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
> >>> up as you go along.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.
> >
> > Good; then it's not a problem.
> >
>
> Asia) Why, do you have a problem with God?
The problem is that religious arguments are only persuasive for believers of
the particular faith.
> > But until that happens, the law is still liable to be enforced; as
> > such, it certainly does have "force and effect."
> >
>
> Asia) Section 52 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it doesn't
> have any force or effect.
Interesting, isn't it?
> > Well, so much for the single best argument against the Federal income
> > tax that's ever been put forth on this newsgroup. The gummint wins
> > and you lose, all because you don't care.
> >
>
> Asia) What is it about winning and losing? This is not about one winning
or
> losing. It is not a game( though you treat it as such).
It's about freedom. Ours and our children's.
Apostle
> "Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >That was a publicity stunt by Hollywood personalities, trying to get
> >their
> >> >names in the news.
> >>
> >> How do you know?
> >>
> >Because that is what hollywood is about my friend.....
>
> I see. You don't know; you assume. Okay, we all do it.
Hmmm, that wasn't an assumption....
Blade
>> >It might be worthwhile to discuss the correctness of that assertion,
>because
>> >the long answer is much much longer. ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> >> >I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people
>> >doing
>> >> >the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to
>> >assume
>> >> >that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators
>are
>> >> >superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
>> >>
>> >> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
>> >
>> >No more so than policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators.
>>
>> Much more.
>
>and which laws are not. Their opinions become the law - that's what they do
>for a living.
>
>Policemen and lawyers and judges often use discretion when enforcing the
>law, where their opinions are the basis of enforcement - or non-enforcement.
>Is there some good reason to assume that their opinions are right and your
>opinions (or mine) are wrong?
>
>
(Q)uaider and this character this for some time but it seems that
equality is only conditional for these fellows and only determined by
a few at that too.
As for the law being determined by morality, I believe the standards
that determine this are found within *agreement* and equality,
irrespective of who the parties are, and it is from these standards
the law gains it's power, force and effect. But as always with these
guys, the law is the law and nation states have the right to do what
they will with *their* citizens by way of their status being changed
by way of an act they had no control over such as being born in a
certain land.
>> >> Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
>> >> most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
>> >> dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
>> >> is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
Blade] Civil society involves the law for judging for a victim and
against a victim creator
>> >
>> >I am not an anarchist. At least, not by any of the usual definitions. If
>you
>> >believe that only anarchists advocate consensual government and contract
>law
>> >where government truly does have the consent of the governed, then by
>that
>> >definition I would be an anarchist. If we are going to bend the
>definitions
>> >and choose extremes in that way, then I would be equally justified in
>> >labelling you an advocate of police-state tyranny.
>> >
>> >Is that the game you wish to play?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Good. Then we will have no more dismissive labelling nonsense.
>
>> And as for consensual government, Canada doesn't have it,
>> hasn't had it, and isn't gonna have it in the foreseeable future.
>
>With your sort of defeated attitude, it wil be like that forever. What the
>hell is wrong with people inthis country? Do they put castration chemicals
>in the water?
>
>> That's unfortunate, but I think that's the way it is.
Blade] it's unfortunate you have an opinion you think is worthwhile,
given your "give up attitude."
Smokin'
"Blade" <ema...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hdu3hukhpdv9clj6u...@4ax.com...
> >Smokin'] How so? Obviously, legislators have opinions about which laws
are worthwhile
> >and which laws are not. Their opinions become the law - that's what they
do
> >for a living.
> >
> >Policemen and lawyers and judges often use discretion when enforcing the
> >law, where their opinions are the basis of enforcement - or
non-enforcement.
> >Is there some good reason to assume that their opinions are right and
your
> >opinions (or mine) are wrong?
> >
> >
> Blade] I like the way you think smokin'. I been trying to tell the
> (Q)uaider and this character this for some time but it seems that
> equality is only conditional for these fellows and only determined by
> a few at that too.
Obviously, there is a serious flaw in any reasoning that assumes some people
may designate "laws and rights etc." while others are relegated to meekly
accepting the designations they are given. If we accept that sort of
thinking then our society is doomed to become a feudal society with a
hereditary aristocracy.
> As for the law being determined by morality, I believe the standards
> that determine this are found within *agreement* and equality,
> irrespective of who the parties are, and it is from these standards
> the law gains it's power, force and effect.
I am not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like your position may be
quite close to mine. I think the law must be moral, and for that to be true
it must also be true that anyone who is bound by a law must agree with that
law. Any binding of people without their consent is an immoral infringement
of their liberty. That said, I think there is plenty of room to discuss the
particulars of consent, whether it can be implicit or must be explicit, and
what exactly can and should be done with dissenters who reject particular
laws.
> But as always with these
> guys, the law is the law and nation states have the right to do what
> they will with *their* citizens by way of their status being changed
> by way of an act they had no control over such as being born in a
> certain land.
Obviously that will not do. I think that such attitudes are a natural
consequence of the liberal philosophy having fallen to skeptical attack
early in the 20th century. That fall left a void that was filled by
utilitarians and pragmatists, which naturally led to the rise of naziism and
communism and socialism and also to the authoritatarian perversions of the
western liberal democracies. We live with the results today.
I am not suggesting any return to the "good old days", liberalism fell to
skeptical attack because the skeptics were correct and the supporting
arguments truly were badly flawed. Those flaws created their own problems
for liberals, but that is another story. Anyhow, there have been advances in
philosophy since then and I think liberalism can reclaim it's place as the
dominant western political philosophy. It will take some debate and a bit of
time, but that's life.
Detax Unmasked
>
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d111b5b...@news.his.com...
>
>> >As I said, the long answer is much much longer. Setting aside your
>question
>> >for the moment (we can come back to it) do you agree with my assertion?
>If
>> >we can (somehow) determine that a particular law is immoral, can we then
>say
>> >with some certaintly that the particular law is unjust and "of no force
>or
>> >effect"?
>>
>> It really does depend on what one means by "moral" and "immoral".
>
>Of course it does, which is why I suggested we set that particular detail
>aside for the moment.
>
>> You
>> and I might agree, for example, that slavery is immoral, and that laws
>> establishing slavery were immoral, while disagreeing on the morality
>> (or lack thereof) of other laws, because we have different ethical
>> systems, and thus different definitions of "moral" and "immoral".
>
>Absolutely. At this point I am happy to establish that there is some basic
>valid reason for rejecting certain laws even if it is only theoretical. You
>might be surprised at the number of people who think that the law cannot be
>challenged in this manner.
So long as one does so in an ethical manner.
>> Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I come from a country where
>> legislators represent their constituents, whereas you come from a
>> country where they do not.
>
>Really? What country is that? I might want to move there.
I doubt that very much.
>> >> And as for consensual government, Canada doesn't have it,
>> >> hasn't had it, and isn't gonna have it in the foreseeable future.
>> >
>> >With your sort of defeated attitude, it wil be like that forever.
>>
>> I'm just being realistic about it. Canada was given a top-down system
>> of government, in which the moral authority flows not from the people
>> to the government through the people's elected representatives, but
>> from the sovreign through the head of state to the government in the
>> person of the Prime Minister, with the people not being part of the
>> equation at all. Now then, how you gonna change that? Armed
>> rebellion? Works, but it's messy. Constitutional amendments? Not a
>> chance, given the current constitutional system that makes such
>> amendments virtually impossible. Civil disobedience? Could work, but
>> as you point out below and as Eldon Warman seems to be figuring out,
>> most of your countrypeople simply do not give a damn.
>
>Yes, I agree with all that. Still, it is important for the few people who do
>care about the country to do something.
Okay.
>Like it or not, the "detax" approach
>seems to be least offensive method of civil disobedience. Nobody gets hurt
>too badly, it hits the tyrant in the pocketbook, and dissenters will at
>least have the personal satisfaction of knowing that they are not funding
>the corrupt crew of Ottawa buttheads any more than absolutely necessary. I
>agree that it is not perfect (nothing is) but it seems to be the best option
>for conscientious Canadians at this time.
But Warman's "method" is not ethical. As such, it cannot and will not
succeed, for it is all too easy to dismiss it as a fraud.
If you want to protest the actions of your government by refusing to
pay taxes, then do so, but do so in an ethical manner. Warman's
approach doesn't qualify.
Ron
Translation from Freddy's Elektroshock/bumblebee mumbo jumbo:
Eldon's method is not recommended as it is lawful and defeats the
government's trickily applied status change to men/women.
Instead we tax promoting Zionist pig fu**ers prefer that you simply
refuse to pay your taxes whilst remaining MEMBERS of the CORPORATE
BODY so that you can be charged and prosecuted without hindrance in
one of our kangaroo courts.
That way we get your tax money, and with a little luck can fine you
heavily and maybe even seize more of your property.
Smokin'
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:436a5d81.0206...@posting.google.com...
> > But Warman's "method" is not ethical. As such, it cannot and will not
> > succeed, for it is all too easy to dismiss it as a fraud.
> >
> > If you want to protest the actions of your government by refusing to
> > pay taxes, then do so, but do so in an ethical manner. Warman's
> > approach doesn't qualify.
> >
>
>
>
> Translation from Freddy's Elektroshock/bumblebee mumbo jumbo:
>
>
> Eldon's method is not recommended as it is lawful and defeats the
> government's trickily applied status change to men/women.
>
> Instead we tax promoting Zionist pig fu**ers prefer that you simply
> refuse to pay your taxes whilst remaining MEMBERS of the CORPORATE
> BODY so that you can be charged and prosecuted without hindrance in
> one of our kangaroo courts.
>
> That way we get your tax money, and with a little luck can fine you
> heavily and maybe even seize more of your property.
Personally, I see no good reason why people cannot do as Warman recommends,
and simply declare themselves "non-tapayers". Giving proper notice to the
Minister of Revenue (as recommended by Warman) seems very ethical, to the
point of "going the extra mile". It's then up to the Minister to prove that
such people really are taxpayers - against their will - and in direct
contradiction of their expressly stated desires.
Again, I really do not understand how any government official (a *servant*
of the people) can force anyone to be a taxpayer against their will. Unless,
of course, government officials are not servants but are masters and the
people are in bondage...
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 2:09 PM:
> "Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
>
>>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
>>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
>>> up as you go along.
>>
>> Who mentioned god?
>
> It comes up regularly. Somebody claims that the one true law is
> "god's law", as if that person's god is the one god accepted by all.
> It's arrogant, disrespectful, and just plain wrong.
>
Asia) Our constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that God is
our supreme law.
>>> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
>>> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>>
>> But should we obey this unjust law?
>
> If one wishes to challenge what one believes to be an unjust law, one
> may certainly do so. As I've said, civil disobedience has a long an
> honorable history.
>
Asia) Yet you have a problem with one doing so.
>>>>> That's not exactly correct. There is at least one other line of legal
>>>>> argument of which I am aware that *could* be pursued, but the
>>>>> individual best equipped to do so does not have the financial
>>>>> resources, and the detax/refusetax types will have nothing to do with
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is that line?
>>>
>>> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
>>> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
>>> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
>>> income taxes.
>>
>> What about the fact that income tax was only to be temprorary?\
>
> It's my understanding that argument has been tried and has failed.
>
>
Asia) That doesn't change the fact that it had a sunset clause.
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 2:12 PM:
Asia) He thinks he knows everything and others know nothing.
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 4:11 PM:
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>
>> "Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3d10d32...@news.his.com...
>>
>>>> You are mistaken. People actually do "pick and choose" which laws to
>> obey,
>>>> and rightly so. That is the only way that bad laws can be eliminated.
>>>
>>> So then it's Okay with you if I rob, or murder, or rape because I
>>> choose not to obey the laws prohibiting those behaviors.
>>
>> Please try to read what was actually written, rather than imagining what was
>> written.
>
> A core principle of interpersonal communication is that the sender of
> the message determines its intent, and the receiver of the message
> detgermines its meaning.
>
Asia) only you twist it to suit you.
>>> That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
>>
>> I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I did not say (or mean) what
>> you imagined.
>
> You said what you intended to say; you meant what *I* say you meant.
> I am sure that this will gall the living hell out of you, but that's
> the way interpersonal communication works.
>
Asia) What *you* say it means? When I say you are an arrogant asshole, I
mean exactly that.
>>>>>> Oh come now... there is no shortage of examples where edicts of
>>>> parliament
>>>>>> have been found unlawful.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right: the law was found to be unlawful. What that
>>>>> demonstrates is that there are levels of law.
>>>>
>>>> Levels? What levels?
>>>
>>> Y'all got levels of gummint, y'all got corresponding levels of law.
>>
>> Well yes, but what has that got to do with unlawful edicts of parliament?
>
> By what are laws enacted by parliament judged to be unjust? I mean,
> I'm not gonna conclude that a law is unjust simply because you say so.
>
Asia) I'm not going to conclude that a law is just simply because you say
it is neither or the government.
>>>>> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
>>>>> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>>>>
>>>> Contrary to the beliefs of certain anti-intellectual louts, philosophy is
>>>> completely about reality.
>>>> An unjust law is "of no force or effect" and repeal or 'striking down' is
>>>> simply an acknowledgement of that fact.
>>>
>>> But until that happens, the law is still liable to be enforced; as
>>> such, it certainly does have "force and effect."
>>>
>>> You can express your opinion as to what laws have what force and
>>> effect, but you don't get to decide, even for yourself.
>>
>> I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people doing
>> the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to assume
>> that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators are
>> superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
>
> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
>
> Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
> most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
> dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
> is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
>
Asia) What is one called when they believe that dictatorship is the road to
take? I don't want any part of your road.
>>>>> That in enacting the British North America Act, 1867, the British
>>>>> parliament's stated intent was that the provinces, not the Federal
>>>>> government, have the exclusive power to impose direct taxes, including
>>>>> income taxes.
>>>>
>>>> As if anyone cares what the British parliament intended 100 years ago....
>>>
>>> Well, so much for the single best argument against the Federal income
>>> tax that's ever been put forth on this newsgroup. The gummint wins
>>> and you lose, all because you don't care.
>>
>> What possible difference could it make? It's much simpler to ignore the
>> unjust edicts. More people should.
>
> Until the guys with the guns show up and cart you off to debtors'
> prison, at which point it might be too late to ignore anything.
>
>
Asia) The fact that one who stands up for their rights might have to go
to jail says it all.
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 5:29 PM:
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> Y'all got levels of gummint, y'all got corresponding levels of law.
>>>>
>>>> Well yes, but what has that got to do with unlawful edicts of parliament?
>>>
>>> By what are laws enacted by parliament judged to be unjust? I mean,
>>> I'm not gonna conclude that a law is unjust simply because you say so.
>>
Asia) The laws that they don't have the authority to put in. The laws they
put in that step on one's rights.
>> Ah... that is the nub of it, yes?
>>
>> The short answer is: an unjust law is a law that is not moral.
>
> And who or what decides whether or not a law is moral? You're
> implying a standard there.
>
Asia) One is capable of deciding if a law is against they moral belief.
>> It might be worthwhile to discuss the correctness of that assertion, because
>> the long answer is much much longer. ;-)
>>
>>
>>>> I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people
>> doing
>>>> the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to
>> assume
>>>> that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators are
>>>> superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
>>>
>>> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
>>
>> No more so than policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators.
>
> Much more.
>
Asia) only in your cowardly mind.
>>> Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
>>> most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
>>> dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
>>> is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
>>
>> I am not an anarchist. At least, not by any of the usual definitions. If you
>> believe that only anarchists advocate consensual government and contract law
>> where government truly does have the consent of the governed, then by that
>> definition I would be an anarchist. If we are going to bend the definitions
>> and choose extremes in that way, then I would be equally justified in
>> labelling you an advocate of police-state tyranny.
>>
>> Is that the game you wish to play?
>
> Nope. And as for consensual government, Canada doesn't have it,
> hasn't had it, and isn't gonna have it in the foreseeable future.
> That's unfortunate, but I think that's the way it is.
>
Asia) So because you "think" that way, it must be so. YEA, RIGHT.
Detax Unmasked
>in article 3d10d5f8...@news.his.com, Detax Unmasked at
>detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 2:09 PM:
>
>> "Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
>>>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
>>>> up as you go along.
>>>
>>> Who mentioned god?
>>
>> It comes up regularly. Somebody claims that the one true law is
>> "god's law", as if that person's god is the one god accepted by all.
>> It's arrogant, disrespectful, and just plain wrong.
>>
> Asia) Our constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that God is
>our supreme law.
Whose god? My god? Your god? Eldon Warman's god?
>>>> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
>>>> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>>>
>>> But should we obey this unjust law?
>>
>> If one wishes to challenge what one believes to be an unjust law, one
>> may certainly do so. As I've said, civil disobedience has a long an
>> honorable history.
>>
> Asia) Yet you have a problem with one doing so.
I have a problem with one doing so in an unethical manner.
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 7:16 PM:
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3d1104db...@news.his.com...
>>
>>>>> By what are laws enacted by parliament judged to be unjust? I mean,
>>>>> I'm not gonna conclude that a law is unjust simply because you say so.
>>>>
>>>> Ah... that is the nub of it, yes?
>>>>
>>>> The short answer is: an unjust law is a law that is not moral.
>>>
>>> And who or what decides whether or not a law is moral? You're
>>> implying a standard there.
>>
>> As I said, the long answer is much much longer. Setting aside your question
>> for the moment (we can come back to it) do you agree with my assertion? If
>> we can (somehow) determine that a particular law is immoral, can we then say
>> with some certaintly that the particular law is unjust and "of no force or
>> effect"?
>
> It really does depend on what one means by "moral" and "immoral". You
> and I might agree, for example, that slavery is immoral, and that laws
> establishing slavery were immoral, while disagreeing on the morality
> (or lack thereof) of other laws, because we have different ethical
> systems, and thus different definitions of "moral" and "immoral".
>
Asia) UD , are you having a problem with the definition of "moral" and
"immoral"
>>>> It might be worthwhile to discuss the correctness of that assertion,
>> because
>>>> the long answer is much much longer. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I think I do get to decide, just as everyone else does. Just as people
>>>> doing
>>>>>> the policing and judging and legislating do. I see no good reason to
>>>> assume
>>>>>> that the opinions of policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators
>> are
>>>>>> superior to your opinions or my opinions. Do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, an anarchist. I had suspected so.
>>>>
>>>> No more so than policemen and lawyers and judges and legislators.
>>>
>>> Much more.
>>
>> How so? Obviously, legislators have opinions about which laws are worthwhile
>> and which laws are not. Their opinions become the law - that's what they do
>> for a living.
>>
>> Policemen and lawyers and judges often use discretion when enforcing the
>> law, where their opinions are the basis of enforcement - or non-enforcement.
>> Is there some good reason to assume that their opinions are right and your
>> opinions (or mine) are wrong?
>
> Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I come from a country where
> legislators represent their constituents, whereas you come from a
> country where they do not.
>
Asia) What country does and what country( other than Canada) doesn't?
>>>>> Civil society involves tradeoffs between freedom and safety. As in
>>>>> most things, neither end of the continuum is desireable. Absolute
>>>>> dictatorship is at one end, anarchy at the other end. So if anarchy
>>>>> is at the end of your road, then I want no part of it.
>>>>
>>>> I am not an anarchist. At least, not by any of the usual definitions. If
>> you
>>>> believe that only anarchists advocate consensual government and contract
>> law
>>>> where government truly does have the consent of the governed, then by
>> that
>>>> definition I would be an anarchist. If we are going to bend the
>> definitions
>>>> and choose extremes in that way, then I would be equally justified in
>>>> labelling you an advocate of police-state tyranny.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the game you wish to play?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Good. Then we will have no more dismissive labelling nonsense.
>>
>>> And as for consensual government, Canada doesn't have it,
>>> hasn't had it, and isn't gonna have it in the foreseeable future.
>>
>> With your sort of defeated attitude, it wil be like that forever.
>
> I'm just being realistic about it.
Asia) You are just being a coward, willing to sit there and say that is
the way it is. Afraid of jail?
Canada was given a top-down system
> of government, in which the moral authority flows not from the people
> to the government through the people's elected representatives, but
> from the sovreign through the head of state to the government in the
> person of the Prime Minister, with the people not being part of the
> equation at all.
Asia) Is it not the people's constitution? Is it not the people's
government?
Now then, how you gonna change that? Armed
>
Asia) How about standing up for one's self.
rebellion? Works, but it's messy. Constitutional amendments? Not a
> chance, given the current constitutional system that makes such
> amendments virtually impossible. Civil disobedience? Could work, but
> as you point out below and as Eldon Warman seems to be figuring out,
> most of your countrypeople simply do not give a damn.
>
Asia) Like yourself.
>> What the
>> hell is wrong with people inthis country? Do they put castration chemicals
>> in the water?
>
> Not for me to say.
>
Asia) Not for you to say? Why are you afraid of that to? Does cowards ring
a bell?
>>> That's unfortunate, but I think that's the way it is.
>>
>> If your position is that Canada is a type of tyranny then you should say so.
>
> Canada is a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, with all of the
> faults and virtues inherent therein.
>
Asia) Canada is a dictatorship, smoke- screened by the word democracy.
>> If your position is that this is acceptable, then I will respectfully
>> disagree.
>
> It's not for me to say whether it is or is not acceptable.
>
Asia) Then why are you constantly telling people to follow their rules and
laws if it's not for you to say?
Asia Svoren
Smokin'@reefer madness.org wrote on 6/19/02 11:22 PM:
>
> "Asia Svoren" <as...@asia.wox.org> wrote in message
> news:B936A523.6428%as...@asia.wox.org...
>
>>> That may not be what you meant, but that's what you said.
>>>
>>>>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
>>>>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
>>>>> up as you go along.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.
>>>
>>> Good; then it's not a problem.
>>>
>>
>> Asia) Why, do you have a problem with God?
>
> The problem is that religious arguments are only persuasive for believers of
> the particular faith.
>
Asia) The Constitution of Canada , " Whereas Canada is founded upon the
principles that recognize the "supremacy" of God......
>>> But until that happens, the law is still liable to be enforced; as
>>> such, it certainly does have "force and effect."
>>>
>>
>> Asia) Section 52 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it doesn't
>> have any force or effect.
>
> Interesting, isn't it?
>
Asia) very
Asia Svoren
Smokin'@reefer madness.org wrote on 6/20/02 12:33 PM:
>
> "Blade" <ema...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:hdu3hukhpdv9clj6u...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Smokin'] How so? Obviously, legislators have opinions about which laws
> are worthwhile
>>> and which laws are not. Their opinions become the law - that's what they
> do
>>> for a living.
>>>
>>> Policemen and lawyers and judges often use discretion when enforcing the
>>> law, where their opinions are the basis of enforcement - or
> non-enforcement.
>>> Is there some good reason to assume that their opinions are right and
> your
>>> opinions (or mine) are wrong?
>>>
>>>
>> Blade] I like the way you think smokin'. I been trying to tell the
>> (Q)uaider and this character this for some time but it seems that
>> equality is only conditional for these fellows and only determined by
>> a few at that too.
>
> Obviously, there is a serious flaw in any reasoning that assumes some people
> may designate "laws and rights etc." while others are relegated to meekly
> accepting the designations they are given. If we accept that sort of
> thinking then our society is doomed to become a feudal society with a
> hereditary aristocracy.
>
Asia) Is that not where it is today?
>
>> As for the law being determined by morality, I believe the standards
>> that determine this are found within *agreement* and equality,
>> irrespective of who the parties are, and it is from these standards
>> the law gains it's power, force and effect.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like your position may be
> quite close to mine. I think the law must be moral, and for that to be true
> it must also be true that anyone who is bound by a law must agree with that
> law. Any binding of people without their consent is an immoral infringement
> of their liberty. That said, I think there is plenty of room to discuss the
> particulars of consent, whether it can be implicit or must be explicit, and
> what exactly can and should be done with dissenters who reject particular
> laws.
>
Asia) Right now it is the threat of jail for the dessenters.
>> But as always with these
>> guys, the law is the law and nation states have the right to do what
>> they will with *their* citizens by way of their status being changed
>> by way of an act they had no control over such as being born in a
>> certain land.
>
> Obviously that will not do. I think that such attitudes are a natural
> consequence of the liberal philosophy having fallen to skeptical attack
> early in the 20th century. That fall left a void that was filled by
> utilitarians and pragmatists, which naturally led to the rise of naziism and
> communism and socialism and also to the authoritatarian perversions of the
> western liberal democracies. We live with the results today.
>
> I am not suggesting any return to the "good old days", liberalism fell to
> skeptical attack because the skeptics were correct and the supporting
> arguments truly were badly flawed. Those flaws created their own problems
> for liberals, but that is another story. Anyhow, there have been advances in
> philosophy since then and I think liberalism can reclaim it's place as the
> dominant western political philosophy. It will take some debate and a bit of
> time, but that's life.
>
>
Asia) It takes strong people to make a change. Canada is full of lemmings.
>
>
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/20/02 2:31 PM:
Asia) Where are we being unethical?
>>> Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I come from a country where
>>> legislators represent their constituents, whereas you come from a
>>> country where they do not.
>>
>> Really? What country is that? I might want to move there.
>
> I doubt that very much.
>
Asia) What's the name of the country was the question put to you. Your
doubt is not matter.
Asia) That is just your opinion.
Asia Svoren
detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/21/02 9:23 AM:
> Asia Svoren <as...@asia.wox.org> wrote:
>
>> in article 3d10d5f8...@news.his.com, Detax Unmasked at
>> detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 2:09 PM:
>>
>>> "Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
>>>>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
>>>>> up as you go along.
>>>>
>>>> Who mentioned god?
>>>
>>> It comes up regularly. Somebody claims that the one true law is
>>> "god's law", as if that person's god is the one god accepted by all.
>>> It's arrogant, disrespectful, and just plain wrong.
>>>
>> Asia) Our constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that God is
>> our supreme law.
>
> Whose god? My god? Your god? Eldon Warman's god?
>
Asia) Constitution Act, 1982(1)
Schedule B
Part 1
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the
"supremacy" of God.......
>>>>> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
>>>>> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>>>>
>>>> But should we obey this unjust law?
>>>
>>> If one wishes to challenge what one believes to be an unjust law, one
>>> may certainly do so. As I've said, civil disobedience has a long an
>>> honorable history.
>>>
>> Asia) Yet you have a problem with one doing so.
>
> I have a problem with one doing so in an unethical manner.
>
Asia) What is unethical about not supporting an unethical governments?
Detax Unmasked
>in article 3d13366...@news.his.com, Detax Unmasked at
>detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/21/02 9:23 AM:
>
>> Asia Svoren <as...@asia.wox.org> wrote:
>>
>>> in article 3d10d5f8...@news.his.com, Detax Unmasked at
>>> detax_u...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/02 2:09 PM:
>>>
>>>> "Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> And *please* do not invoke the concept of your god as the giver of
>>>>>> universal law. That is tantamount to saying that you get to make it
>>>>>> up as you go along.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who mentioned god?
>>>>
>>>> It comes up regularly. Somebody claims that the one true law is
>>>> "god's law", as if that person's god is the one god accepted by all.
>>>> It's arrogant, disrespectful, and just plain wrong.
>>>>
>>> Asia) Our constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that God is
>>> our supreme law.
>>
>> Whose god? My god? Your god? Eldon Warman's god?
>>
>
> Asia) Constitution Act, 1982(1)
> Schedule B
> Part 1
> Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
>
> Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the
>"supremacy" of God.......
... which does *not* answer the question: whose god?
Mindlessly quoting something won't answer that question. This one
takes *thought*.
If you don't know the answer, say so.
>>>>>> I wasn't thinking of philosopy, I was thinking of reality. An unjust
>>>>>> law is still the law until repealed or struck down.
>>>>>
>>>>> But should we obey this unjust law?
>>>>
>>>> If one wishes to challenge what one believes to be an unjust law, one
>>>> may certainly do so. As I've said, civil disobedience has a long an
>>>> honorable history.
>>>>
>>> Asia) Yet you have a problem with one doing so.
>>
>> I have a problem with one doing so in an unethical manner.
>>
> Asia) What is unethical about not supporting an unethical governments?
Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that the government may be
doing something unethical does not give you permission to do something
unethical in return.
Smokin'
"Asia Svoren" <as...@asia.wox.org> wrote in message
news:B938B9C3.6488%as...@asia.wox.org...
> >> Absolutely. At this point I am happy to establish that there is some
basic
> >> valid reason for rejecting certain laws even if it is only theoretical.
You
> >> might be surprised at the number of people who think that the law
cannot be
> >> challenged in this manner.
> >
> > So long as one does so in an ethical manner.
> >
> Asia) Where are we being unethical?
That's a good question. I have looked at a few of these de-tax things and
there was a TV program about them a few weeks ago. Some are undoubtedly
scams run by shady operators trying to get rich quick. Warman's advice seems
legit and he does update it as necessary. I'm not saying that he is right
about everything, but I do think he is honest, sincere and not a scam
artist. It's unfair to call him unethical.
> >>> Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I come from a country where
> >>> legislators represent their constituents, whereas you come from a
> >>> country where they do not.
> >>
> >> Really? What country is that? I might want to move there.
> >
> > I doubt that very much.
> >
>
> Asia) What's the name of the country was the question put to you. Your
> doubt is not matter.
Yes, I would like to know the name of that country. Switzerland maybe?
Smokin'
> > Obviously, there is a serious flaw in any reasoning that assumes some
people
> > may designate "laws and rights etc." while others are relegated to
meekly
> > accepting the designations they are given. If we accept that sort of
> > thinking then our society is doomed to become a feudal society with a
> > hereditary aristocracy.
> >
> Asia) Is that not where it is today?
More so every day, for the reasons I mentioned.
> >> As for the law being determined by morality, I believe the standards
> >> that determine this are found within *agreement* and equality,
> >> irrespective of who the parties are, and it is from these standards
> >> the law gains it's power, force and effect.
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like your position
may be
> > quite close to mine. I think the law must be moral, and for that to be
true
> > it must also be true that anyone who is bound by a law must agree with
that
> > law. Any binding of people without their consent is an immoral
infringement
> > of their liberty. That said, I think there is plenty of room to discuss
the
> > particulars of consent, whether it can be implicit or must be explicit,
and
> > what exactly can and should be done with dissenters who reject
particular
> > laws.
> >
> Asia) Right now it is the threat of jail for the dessenters.
In some cases, that may be a legitimate response. For example, I would agree
with jailing (or institutionalizing) anyone who rejects any law that defends
people's liberty. Mind you, people who reject the laws defending liberty
can't really complain if their liberty is curtailed....
Sure, but that's always been true in every country. The trick is to be able
to persuade a sufficient number of lemmings to follow you over the cliff.
;-)
It is vital that you really have yer shit together internally before you
charge off appealing to the masses for support. That's where most
well-intentioned political movments and/or parties fail, because good
intentions and vague promises are not sufficient. To prosper over the lang
haul (and it will be a long haul) there must be meat behind the political
movement sizzle.
Smokin'
> >>> Asia) Our constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that God
is
> >>> our supreme law.
> >>
> >> Whose god? My god? Your god? Eldon Warman's god?
> >>
> >
> > Asia) Constitution Act, 1982(1)
> > Schedule B
> > Part 1
> > Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
> >
> > Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the
> >"supremacy" of God.......
>
> ... which does *not* answer the question: whose god?
There is only one God. ;-)
> > Asia) What is unethical about not supporting an unethical governments?
>
> Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that the government may be
> doing something unethical does not give you permission to do something
> unethical in return.
There isn't anything unethical about tax-refusal, and that is really the
only political issue we are concerned with here. Some of the de-tax boosters
may have faults or even criminal intentions, but that is neither here nor
there wrt tax refusal.
Smokin'
> >>> A few years ago, there were pretty continuous demonstrations in
> >>> Washington, DC against the apartheid that existed in South Africa at
> >>> the time. Now the District has a law prohibiting demonstrations
> >>> within 100 feet of an embassy, and this law was borken, day after day,
> >>> by celebrities from various walks of life who would cross the line,
> >>> walk up to the front door of the Embassy of South Africa, and proclaim
> >>> their objection to this unjust regime. They were duly arrested and
> >>> charged with violating the law regarding demonstrating too close to an
> >>> embassy. And they pled Guilty, too. They didn't bitch about the law.
> >>> They didn't whine about the law. They didn't complain about the law.
> >>> They went prepared to take whatever medicine was dished out because
> >>> their cause was worth it to them. And the pressure that this put on
> >>> the government of the day in South Africa to end apartheid was
> >>> enormous.
> >>>
> >>> *That* is civil disobedience.
> >>
> >> That was a publicity stunt by Hollywood personalities, trying to get
their
> >> names in the news.
> >
> > How do you know?
> >
> >
> Asia) He thinks he knows everything and others know nothing.
I know it was a publicity stunt in much the same way that DU knows it was
civil disobedience.
Smokin'
> in article 6McQ8.34857$vo2.1...@news2.telusplanet.net, Smokin' at
> >> Asia) Why, do you have a problem with God?
> >
> > The problem is that religious arguments are only persuasive for
believers of
> > the particular faith.
> >
> Asia) The Constitution of Canada , " Whereas Canada is founded upon the
> principles that recognize the "supremacy" of God......
Yes, but that's included in the text only to remind our elected officials
that they ain't god. ;-)
Detax Unmasked
>
>"Detax Unmasked" <detax_u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d1369f...@news.his.com...
>
>> >>> Asia) Our constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that God
>is
>> >>> our supreme law.
>> >>
>> >> Whose god? My god? Your god? Eldon Warman's god?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Asia) Constitution Act, 1982(1)
>> > Schedule B
>> > Part 1
>> > Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
>> >
>> > Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the
>> >"supremacy" of God.......
>>
>> ... which does *not* answer the question: whose god?
>
>
>There is only one God. ;-)
This is why I did not want the g-word entering the discourse.
>> > Asia) What is unethical about not supporting an unethical governments?
>>
>> Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that the government may be
>> doing something unethical does not give you permission to do something
>> unethical in return.
>
>There isn't anything unethical about tax-refusal, and that is really the
>only political issue we are concerned with here. Some of the de-tax boosters
>may have faults or even criminal intentions, but that is neither here nor
>there wrt tax refusal.
There may be nothing wrong with the *concept*, but there sure can be
things wrong with the *implementation*. That's the problem with
Lavigne's approach: the implementation is sufficiently flawed as to
call his motives into question.
Smokin'
> >There isn't anything unethical about tax-refusal, and that is really the
> >only political issue we are concerned with here. Some of the de-tax
boosters
> >may have faults or even criminal intentions, but that is neither here nor
> >there wrt tax refusal.
>
> There may be nothing wrong with the *concept*, but there sure can be
> things wrong with the *implementation*. That's the problem with
> Lavigne's approach: the implementation is sufficiently flawed as to
> call his motives into question.
There are plenty to choose from, and public spririted people are pointing
out the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. ;-)
Apostle
> >only political issue we are concerned with here. Some of the de-tax
boosters
> >may have faults or even criminal intentions, but that is neither here nor
> >there wrt tax refusal.
>
> There may be nothing wrong with the *concept*, but there sure can be
> things wrong with the *implementation*. That's the problem with
> Lavigne's approach: the implementation is sufficiently flawed as to
> call his motives into question.
>
don't, talking about implementation in this fashion is simply specious.
Apostle
>
> That's a good question. I have looked at a few of these de-tax things and
> there was a TV program about them a few weeks ago. Some are undoubtedly
> scams run by shady operators trying to get rich quick. Warman's advice
seems
> legit and he does update it as necessary. I'm not saying that he is right
> about everything, but I do think he is honest, sincere and not a scam
> artist. It's unfair to call him unethical.
>
genuine guy who cares about things, he ist'n tryin to get me to send my life
savings nore any money whatsoever, this is usually a good indication of
someones intention.
And even if they are asking for a few bucks, it's certainly acceptable as
you can't really do anythign these days without cash.