Even the Liberty Minded are Dumb Shits

[Dale Eastman]

"The IRS aren't omniscient... they are morons" QOTD.

Please state the law that makes an American liable for the tax allegedly imposed on their domestic compensation for labor.

Why are you asking an anarchist to quote laws?

Do you think the IRS will NOT interact with those it labels Tax-Law-Violators?
Will you ignore its summons to court?
Will you ignore the men with guns sent to drag your ass to court?
(As a side note, are you aware of the raid on Larken's home?)
Are you aware that any Gov-Turd MUST allege a violation of a law?
Can a law that doesn't exist be violated?
IF you don't know the law you are charged with violating, How do you defend against the charge?

I'm  happy with my setup. Thank you for your concern though.

What is Larken Rose's PURPOSE with this particular Discord Server?

[Dale Eastman]

Good example of the word "you" being used as a taunt.

The form of presented questions matters if a meaningful discussion that seeks the truth is being requested.

Trying to force it by manipulation through a taunt just isn't going to work. People who are interested in fighting with someone else will be the only ones who tend to engage with someone who taunts like this.

    What is Larken Rose's PURPOSE with this particular Discord Server?

Is also a taunt.

A non-taunting version of these questions would be,

    "Larken Rose has unfortunately had to deal with unjust tax issues before. Is anyone interested in discussing any ways they've found to deal with the tax code & IRS, so that effective defenses can be created and understood? You know stuff that anyone can follow to succeed against the theft of taxation?

    Can even offer some insight and suggestions that might be interesting and overlooked because of so much studying that was done related to the laws they have on the books."

Does it make sense that the people who will engage with this request will likely have a productive discussion, whereas taunts are just inviting arguments?

Also, if someone is quite confident in the notion that people can successfully defend themselves by knowing the law, then a reasonable case should be assembled, and supporting evidence should be presented bountifully and concisely. This will serve discussion to be as meaningful as possible.

From those claims, questions and criticisms will naturally arise in the minds of those who are interested in having that discussion, and these thoughts will strive in pursuit of the truth. The more non-antagonistic things are the better for meaningful discussion to reach the truth.

The first part of socratic questioning/learning is for a topic & claim to be presented that people actually want to discuss. Can't skip the first step, and just ask implying questions with no direct and meaningful claim. People usually won't engage with the topic.