Post reply

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 30, 2024, 10:32:35 AM »

Quote from:  YDOM on 30 August @ 11:29
Are you claiming this answer is not "stated clearly, concisely, and completely. "?
Quote from:  YDOM on 27 August @ 16:40
If you have no knowledge of the tax laws, how would you know when the IRS lies to you?

Please answer the questions.
Quote from:   D-y on 30 August @ 12:04
No, not claiming that. Though you've posted a question as a claim? Questions aren't claims, so it doesn't really answer anything.

Just trying to better understand everything that you're communicating by asking questions here.

So, does that mean that everyone should learn the tax laws so that they will know the IRS lies to them, correct? Just trying to put your points into my own words so that we can discuss things without confusion.
Quote from:  YDOM on 31 August @ 07:46
Questions to teach is called the Socratic Method. I have been attempting to improve my use of the method since I learned of Socratic Method.

Thus my purpose is to cause folks to think about things. Such as you have done by your observation and (implied) questioning of my method.

Your interpretation of my intent is only partially correct. Since you did ask a direct question as to what you have interpreted, the direct answer is "No." This is only a first pass; a first look at the IRS'/ government lies.

Once you know that an entity lies to you, are you going to ignore any other words of that entity that might just be more lies? Or are you going to examine its other words and check them for validity?

Looking at this another way, if you have a friend that deliberately lied to you, How long would you think them a friend; Especially if their lies cost you FRN's? I'm sure most folks following Larken are aware that government lies. There are Statists that believe the myth that government is their friend.

So going a little deeper, It is my intent to expose the specific lies used to defraud the people of their hard earned FRN's.

Would it be easier to defend yourself from government's attacks when you can say, Wait just a minute, doesn't that law you are using to charge me with a crime say this, "(actual words of law)"? Can you defend yourself better if you have no clue as to those actual words of law?
Quote from:   D-y on 31 August @ 11:59
That makes sense. 👌

You have a good goal.
Quote from:  YDOM on 31 August @ 14:26
]You and I can converse, or you can look at my prior written words on the I-tax subject.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/ExamineFedTax.html
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 29, 2024, 11:08:38 AM »

Quote from:  YDOM on 29 August @ 12:25
Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 14:30
What is the purpose of learning the tax laws?

Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 18:42
So, what is the purpose of learning these laws?

Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 21:02
Sure, that's what the question is meant to address. The purpose behind learning the laws.

I apologize for insulting you. Please forgive my insult. You must be a government school graduate.

Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 21:02
Rather than assume, would prefer to hear the intended purpose stated clearly, concisely, and completely.

Are you claiming this answer is not "stated clearly, concisely, and completely. "?
Quote from:  YDOM on 27 August @ 16:40
If you have no knowledge of the tax laws, how would you know when the IRS lies to you?

Quote from:  D-y on 29 August @ 12:41
Its just a basic clarification.
The claim is that everyone should learn the tax laws so that they will know the IRS lies to them, correct?

Is there any more to it than that? Is that the only intention present?
Quote from:   pd on 29 August @ 13:51
I find it important to both know and have available certain definitions that they don't like, such as "to exploit" is to make use of a thing. When you exploit a resource, you are for example cutting down a tree or removing coal from the ground… An unexploited resource is useless. An unexploited human resource is unemployed.
So who harms a human more? The person who exploits him in exchange for money? Or the person who refuses to hire him?
Quote from:  D-y on 29 August @ 13:17
3:17 PM
Exploit's common use has a negative connotation that you're taking advantage of something in an unfair or harmful way though.

Seems like that is likely to lead to unnecessary semantics arguments and confusion about what is being communicated making the discussion dysfunctional without much to gain for it.
Quote from:  NN on 29 August @ 15:29
Well the outcome is the benefit.
Their method is ambiguation, the intended outcome is to obfuscate their goals - so we can't fight back.
In order to think clearly and so act decisively and effectively, we want disambiguation aka clarity.

In large part, that means we need to know definitions so we can know what people are saying and what they aren't saying, and so we can say what we mean and understand how it will be distorted, and account for that when possible.

Their ambiguation is very intentional and effective, especially when we don't know that's the fight we're in.
Quote from:  NN on 29 August @ 15:32
Forgive my run on sentences. I don't have enough time for revisions at the moment.
Quote from:  D-y on 29 August @ 16:03
Agreement, and both can be done.

So the notion is to avoid the semantics argument that will come from using terms where both parties aren't in agreement on what the terms mean, by first clarifying the terms or using other terms where there is agreement on their meaning? Sure, that'll work.

The concern was that it might be likely to befuddle communication if one party is using a term to its literal definition, while the other is using the common meaning of it. Lots of good discussions get stuck in a fight/semantics argument over what each individual thinks the term's definition should be, instead of moving inexorably towards the truth and finding a way to talk clearly about the matter at hand.
Quote from:  NN on 29 August @ 17:16
Right.  When they "takeover" a word they are taking linguistic and so mental territory.
Anyone who thinks of their definitions in place of correct definitions is captured.
And that's arguably the most important territory.

So ok, now just having a conversation with someone who is ideologically captured is way more difficult.

They reinforce their ideology, and by engaging poorly, our own thoughts are easily ambiguated.

Con - together
Versare - turn about (change)

To change together.

But instead of a conversation, it turns into a verbal fight.  You're fighting their specter; they're fighting your specter.

How do you disentangle this clusterfuck?

My first thought is not to define every single term in every single conversation.

It's to prioritize.

As soon as you identify a critical term, reinforce your accurate understanding of it.

Read the dictionary definition and importantly the etymology.

Then in conversation, whenever those critical terms come up, ask the other party to define that term.  Don't say what you think their definition is.  Ask them to open that kimono.

Be ready to give your definition and receipts for why it is the correct one.

Give receipts for why their usage is incorrect.

Whatever the broader topic is becomes secondary because you can't discuss it with confused language.

They captured those terms in order to stop people from coming to opposing conclusions.

If you disarm that term by breaking their occupation of it, then people can come to opposing conclusions.
An example of an incorrectly used term
Gender.
The correct usage of the word gender just means "of a certain class, type, or category"
It can be applied to biological sex.
It can also be applied to types of emotions, like if you want to engender a feeling of comradery.

Now when it is applied to biological sex, it is being applied to biological sex.
If it were being applied to social sexual gender roles, it would be applied to that, not some ethereal non-sexual "gender".
You can't have a type of nothing.  You can only have a type of a thing.

Gender, when applied to biological sex has always been about biological sex.

So then the idiot will say "yeah but language evolves bro."

Except this term didn't evolve that way.
It was intentionally captured and then enforced by ideologues in the 70s.

I can't find the name of the professor who wrote that nonsense in right now, no time.
But it would be good to have that info if having this debate with a lefty for example.
Quote from:  NN on 29 August @ 17:41
at 5:41 PM
"The modern academic sense of the word... was popularized and developed by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards, which theorizes that human nature is essentially epicene and social distinctions based on sex are arbitrarily constructed. In this context, matters pertaining to this theoretical process of social construction were labelled matters of gender."

So, literally made up by marxist ideologues espousing the long debunked tabula rasa theory.

Their technique was very effective.

As long as you identify as literally any "identity" other than your nationality, then you can't beat communism the way it was beat last time.

And look where we are now.
Quote from:  D-y on 29 August @ 18:38
Ah, If the target is to confront others about the definitions of words, then the suggestion is instead to create culture. It is one of the most powerful methods of moving language.

While the grammarians nit pick each other over millimeters in specifics, the public use of things moves miles. Reminded of Bugs Bunny essentially changing the meaning of the word Nimrod, because the public misunderstood the joke in the cartoon.


    So then the idiot will say "yeah but language evolves bro."


Gender's new use has been meticulously changed by the cultist culture of the Gay Race Communists being supported by the system. They indoctrinated the children with it with cartoons and teachers, and for the college students its their professors, the doctors are now instructed to use it, its enforced in the office place with HR. Its everywhere in programming licenses for free and paid programs/code now too!


IF enough people are using their power to encourage it's use(that of the classical definition of gender) then something might change over time. But culture that can get people to do that should be what is produced; A one on one with someone over the definition of something isn't going to get very far, unless they're a celebrity and the discussion changes their use of the word, and its in such a way that their fans will also do the same. Something like that might work. Or meme culture that hits many people could. Lots of options to look at.

Of note, there's a bunch of legal terms that have different meanings like "Understand" that were captured by the system as well.
The legal system managed to keep and still use latin terms for many things that have been around for centuries. Perhaps if the essence of that is figured out, it might help with efforts to preserve definitions.
Quote from:  D-y on 29 August @ 18:55
Ah, just thought of other examples that might be helpful. Elon changed twitter's name to X. That created a culture-vs-counterculture movement of people calling it different things.

Now whether somebody calls it twitter, twatter, or X, it conveys more information about what they think of the site.

A similar thing happened with Kiev or Kyiv(that the media pushes).

These are key examples of culture and terms being changed.
Quote from:  D-y on 29 August @ 19:20
The liberty movement has terms like voluntarist and modern day abolitionist that are so powerful. They need culture to promote them for them to become used by the public though.
Quote from:  NN on 29 August @ 19:43
7:43 PM
well there's no instant solution.
if people in your town are asshole drivers,
they won't instantly all be courteous drivers just because you let someone get over one time.
we should make a habit of doing things the way we think they should be done.
each time we do, it will influence someone for better or worse.
make a habit of making it for the better.
Then when you come across a bigger influencer, you can do that with them.
and you can work to become one yourself.

But none of this is an overnight fix.

We're off by at least one generation, more likely two.

But as the african proverb goes:

"How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time."

So, we'd better get started, and keep right on.
Quote from:  D-y on 29 August @ 20:12
Mostly agree!
It's important to lead by example.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
There's so many fakers, that when someone is the real deal people are actually surprised.


The term "influencer" has become so yucky! 🤢 lol
Another overused term by the trendies that is fighting its old definition.

Being a good influence on those around you still works thankfully. There's also giving someone the facts, both for and against, and letting them decide for themselves. A reputation is needed for that one to have any pull though.


Really its only such a battle because nearly all of the institutions of learning and media are so blatantly captured by bad actors.
Quote from:   pd on 29 August @ 20:22
Occupying logistical linguistic ground is what allowed Newspeak to take root in 1984
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 28, 2024, 03:39:19 AM »

Quote from: NN on 25 August @ 16:08
https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-explains-laws-incomprehensible-writing-style-0819
Quote from: YDOM on 26 August @ 09:18
I read the MIT article NN posted. Good read. I would appreciate a discussion of a specific set of laws. In light of the article's implied claim that legalese is not understandable.
Internal Revenue Code
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof,  [shall have bad things happen blah, blah.]

Where are the rules requiring persons to obey the requirement?

Can a person willfully fail to pay a tax if that person is NOT made liable to pay that tax?
Quote from: YDOM on 26 August @ 09:22
Internal Revenue Code
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, [shall have bad things happen blah, blah.]

Can a person willfully attempt to evade a tax that person has not been made liable for?
Quote from: NN on 26 August @ 14:25
My moral view is that for a contract to be valid, it must be:

    1. An actual written, signed contract (digital is fine).
    2. Agreed to willingly, free from any coercion or duress whatsoever.
    3. While fully lucid and informed.


I can't speak to the written "legalese" on the issue.

Magic spells and threats of violence have no authority over what is right or wrong.

And after multiple different tests, I've found that lawyers tend not to have any ability to think critically.

Their job requires them to navigate legalese magic spells to convince people of things.

Their job does not require them to discern and accurately communicate how reality (or morality) works.

One attorney I struck up a debate with argued that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what can be argued for the best.

Imagine the implications of that.
Quote from: PD on 26 August @ 18:38
my short, hot-take: laws require long convoluted writing because humans are antithetical to being governed by laws and will squeeze through cracks exactly like water when you clench your fist.
Quote from: NN on 26 August @ 22:50
that's a good take
Quote from: YDOM on 27 August @ 07:17
The outright laziness of humans in the liberty movement who bitch and whine about tax law having never put eyes on it is my motivation for citing sec. 7201 & 7203. This segued from the original article's post, hence I called it a thread hijack.
Though I was never in harm's way, my 4 years gave me time to think about, If my M-16 is out of ammo, that dead enemy's AK-47 is what I would then use until it's out of ammo.
I also had my hands on a booklet titled "Turning the Regs Around"
How many of you are/were familiar with marcstevens.net before he quit?

Quote from: NN on 27 August @ 11:39
I tried marcstevens.net but it came up blank.

As the leftys say, I respect the "diversity of tactics" within some limits.

Those who want to wage lawfare for us are fine by me.

Here's the "but":

The devil has infinite ways to deceive.

Commies for example can't think that well, so they often use the same arguments.

One argument they always use is "But did you even read Marx?"

The implication being that you are unqualified to speak against communism if you haven't read their propaganda.

And in that propaganda they redefine terms and indoctrinate the brainless into a tangled web of nonsense.  Marx literally uses an imaginary definition for exploitation.  When they say exploitation, they mean something different than what the word means.

So when you say "A willfully chosen job is not inherently exploitation" they will say "How can you say that!?  You don't even know that we use our own definition of exploitation, you ignoramus!  You clearly haven't even read Marx!"

So,

Nothing wrong with reading Marx, but it is not a prerequisite to knowing that communism is not how economics work.  What you need to know is - how economics works.

And,

Nothing wrong with reading Mein Kampf for educational purposes.  But it is not a prerequisite to know that gassing people is evil.  What you need to know is morality.

Likewise with tax law:

Someone could spend their life reading all millions of lines written in the tyrant's laws book.
I guarantee the tyrant can hire more law writers to keep writing more laws than you could ever read.
I mean... look around.

Or,

That same someone could exile the tyrant.
Quote from: YDOM on 27 August @ 13:54
There is merit to most of what you wrote. Except you are flat out wrong about the income tax law. I can prove that statement and this is where I usually get ghosted. Care to continue our dance?
Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 14:30
  Can a person willfully attempt to evade a tax that person has not been made liable for?

What is the purpose of learning the tax laws?

And by that, what is meant is that if everyone knew the tax laws, would they no longer have to pay taxes?

That's the main point here, correct?
Quote from:  NN on 27 August @ 15:33
I'd be happy to hear your reasons and arguments.
I could totally be missing something, and if so I always want to know about it.

There are lots of areas of knowledge to learn about.
There is a general hierarchy to what's good to prioritize learning about.
There are also personal factors that would make one body of knowledge a higher priority for this person or that person.

So, here are some honest questions about your views:

Why should an average person learn about law?
Does this apply to everyone?  Or just people living in places where taxe laws are enforced?  Or just people in the US?  Or just voluntarists?
And why is tax law unique among other areas of law?
Why not international, civil, criminal, or any other area of the law?
Quote from:  YDOM on 27 August @ 16:40
Here is that question again:
 Can a person willfully attempt to evade a tax that person has not been made liable for?
I will reword this as an incomplete question: Can a person willfully attempt to evade a tax that has not been imposed?
You asked:

    What is the purpose of learning the tax laws?

If you have no knowledge of the tax laws, how would you know when the IRS lies to you?

    And by that, what is meant is that if everyone knew the tax laws, would they no longer have to pay taxes?

You are already not paying attention. This is about tax on your payroll.

    That's the main point here, correct?

No. Focus. Payroll tax.
Quote from:  YDOM on 27 August @ 16:52
    Why should an average person learn about law?

As the criminals in government claim: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    Does this apply to everyone?

Everyone working for a living in any of the 50 States united.

    Or just people living in places where tax laws are enforced?

Where are the income tax laws enforced?

    why is tax law unique among other areas of law?

Direct taxes must be apportioned.

https://synapticsparks.info/tax/ExamineFedTax.html
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/FORM-1040.html
Quote from:  NN on 27 August @ 17:09
They claim.  That's my point.  Anyone can claim anything.

And if I avoid their enforcement of that claim, then I would be willfully (intentionally) not complying with that claim.
Whether that claim is valid or not is a different story.
If they make no attempt to enforce the claim, then whether I failed to pay it or not isn't relevant as far as I can tell.

So, the state may have the power to enforce prima nocta, but that does not make it right for them to do so.

If i have not willfully, explicitly, freely agreed with their claim, and they enforce their claim on me,
then they defacto claim ownership of another human being.
That would make me a slave and they my ruler.

So, the state may claim that direct taxes must be apportioned.

As far as I'm concerned, that's just some dude saying some random BS.
That dude may have an entire army and the support of most of the millions of habitants in this country.
That dude may bring all of that down to bear on me to enforce that claim.
That dude could write 40 quintillion lines of "law" to justify the claim.

If the claim aligns with what is morally and factually right, then it's right.
But if the claim is wrong, it is still wrong.

Some call that dude the levaithon.  I call him some dumb cunt.
Quote from:  NN on 27 August @ 17:41
They may come and say,

"As it is written in the official tome of dreadfully serious statutes,
The third book, section 23, passage 32.683q...
Wingardium Leviosaaa!"

And then they bring down their lawyers and military might, the support of the hoard of brainless statists, and the leviathan in all of its powerful majesty...

None of that will make anyone fly.

Because in the end, laws are just words written down, everyone who enthusiastically follows those laws are enthralled by fiction, and underneath that polyester robe, every judge is just some cunt like the rest of us.
Quote from:  NN on 27 August @ 18:16
So based on that premise, how to know if an FBI agent is lying is the same as if anyone else is violating your natural rights:

Is he violating your natural rights?
Is he claiming that he has the right to do so?

If yes to both, he's lying.  Or just a moron.
Either way, he's wrong.

...Not that that would stop them from using coercion or violence to control someone.
But actually I am interested in sections 7201 and 7203.
It sounds like you discovered some significance to them.

In your view, can someone willfully fail to pay something they're not liable to pay?

It seems to me the answer is yes.
Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 18:42
Was there ever an agreement to pay ANY of these taxes?
No, because there isn't any contractual consent that exists, because its not consent if the only reason people are paying is because of govco's coercion.

So, what is the purpose of learning these laws?
Will that somehow aid in stopping the collection of taxes? How?
Quote from:  NN on 27 August @ 20:17
Well there are a lot of smart people who are into lawfare.

Pursuing policy changes and things.  Minarchists, libertarians, et cetera.

It's not my bag, but if those more inclined are able to make progress I tend to support it.

It takes all types.
Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 21:02
Sure, that's what the question is meant to address. The purpose behind learning the laws.

Rather than assume, would prefer to hear the intended purpose stated clearly, concisely, and completely.