Open Letter to Muslim Terrorists

[Hogeye]

Dear Muslim Terrorist,

I know you're mad at the Christian terrorists from the US Empire, the ones that murder your children, occupy your country, and torture your fellows. Were I in your shoes, I'd probably feel the same way. I know there's nothing I can say that will bring back your loved ones, or change your quest for justice and revenge. I have but one small request. If you nuke a US city, please nuke Washington DC, not Fayetteville, Arkansas. Washington is the head of the beast. That's where the rulers abide, where all plots of Christian terrorism are hatched, where the terrorist plotting to kill your people and steal your land originates. That's where you need to bomb; those are the folks you need to kill.

Fayetteville is harmless. Yes, we have some braindead people who blindly follow rulers, and believe the lies of the fuhrers. You know the type. Just as deluded fools followed Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran and other political gods, we have zombies for Clinton and Bush and American political idols. But these weak-kneed followers are just walking dead - incapable of harm without imperialist voodoo priests chanting their patiotiotic spells. The high priests of Christian terrorism are in Washington, in the White House and the Pentagon. Please take them out, and leave the simple folks alone.

Frankly, most Americans would be greatly in your debt if you nuked Washington. The Imperial Rulers steal nearly half of American working people's product; they imprison a larger percentage of we who live here than any other State in the world - what with its permanent mock wars on drug users and immigrants, landowners, the productive and the poor. The rulers of the US Evil Empire have debased our money, seduced our children into becoming murderers, and sell our future for their short-term personal plundered booty. Frankly, many of us would cheer if Washington DC were nuked into oblivion.

The Fayettevilles and Sprindales of people's America were never your enemy. Fayetteville has no bases in your holy lands, for Fayetteville has no standing army, no missles, no bombs, and no military industrial complex. We do have a farmers' market and a pretty good library. We have a University which welcomes Muslim students, and teaches rhetoric and philosophy and tolerance. Fayetteville is not your enemy. We denounce the Christian terrorism of the rulers in Washington DC. We welcome you to "have at them." I'll buy you a beer at Roger's Rec if you take out the White House.

Hogeye Bill

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Conclusion of a recent trial gave 30 years in prison to an American for "plotting with the terrorists". They would have given him more, but there were zero victims of his actions.

Hogeye credits Muslim Terrorists with a lot more logic than they deserve - and ordinary Americans with a lot less. Washington couldn't do anything with their plans and plots without money and power. Washington's power and money comes from (amongst other sources) ordinary people in ordinary towns like Fayetteville. I have never been fond of chaos, nor do I care for the death and destruction that comes with the short period of anarchy before the "strong man" despot rises to the top and takes over - nor the death and destruction after.

[Hogeye]

Washington couldn't do anything with their plans and plots without money and power.

The USEmpire has the police power to plunder the citizenry, or at least intimidate most of them into paying. You are right, Barbara, that taxpayers do bear some moral culpability to the extent of their compliance with govt extortion. Peacemakers should definitely make some effort to resist taxation.

That said, the main blame goes to the rulers who mass-murder and extort, not their victims. If Rome-on-the-Potomac were to be nuked and the US State disbanded, rest assured that most people would stop paying the IRS!

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Taking out Washington wouldn't be enough (even though it would also take out a whole lot of "civilians" including children who have little to do with the fed except to live under it - remember DC isn't represented in Congress and has only been allowed to vote for president since the '60s) - their are "backup" plans in place. To throw us into the total anarchy you want would require killing every elected and appointed fed in office.

As to people resisting taxation, get real. Only people who work for themselves have that option. Everybody else has their taxes deducted from their paycheck before they receive it. That hasn't been viable since we got "pay-as-you-go" taxing in the 1930s.

[Hogeye]

Without a central government, the firms would refuse to collect extortion money for one. Barbara, you seem to think a few surviving feds make a State. Not if that State has lost its aura of legitimacy. That nealy happened after Washington was destroyed in the War of 1812. I think if Washington DC were gone, USAmerican people would fall back on local legal systems and defense services. May we get the chance to find out!

[Cosmo]

I think Hogeye nailed it right here with this term. I personally do get the increasing feeling that we are in fact living in a country ruled by a Nero in Federalist clothing. Resisting this "voluntary" induhvidual tax is possible only if prison is your kind of bag.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Cosmo, I'd say Mussolini rather than Nero, but the argument with Hogeye is not whether or not our current government is a good thing, but whether or not government in principal is a good thing. I say it is, Hogeye says it isn't. From my perspective, Hogeye's arguments seem to come from a role playing game, where you can always start over if you or your family/tribe/clan are killed off, and having very little connection with reality. However, you can read his comments on other threads and judge for yourself.

As to taxes - most citizens don't have a choice in the matter of paying them. Only the very wealthy and the self-employed have that option as far as income taxes are concerned - those are the ones who could potentially go to jail for not paying. I say potentially because the very wealthy have been given enough tax breaks to make paying moot for some of them. As far as other taxes, that comes down to owning no property and not buying anything - I guess living on the streets and dumpster diving for food and clothing pretty much sums up the choice for not paying taxes in this state. Some states don't have sales tax on groceries (Texas, for example), and you could sort of slide on housing by saying renters don't pay taxes - but of course they do in the rent paid to the owner who pays taxes on the property from the rent money.

My personal opinion is that there should be no taxes on property, very few (if any) taxes on sales, and the money required to run the government should come from graduated income taxes with the exemptions the same as now, but very few (if any) deduction - and personal and business/corporate rates the same. Of course, I'd get rid of most of the corporate subsidies out there, which would trim the budget considerably - but can you hear the screams if either plan were suggested?!

[Dardedar]

Resisting this "voluntary" induhvidual tax is possible only if prison is your kind of bag.

DAR
We don't have a debtors prison so you don't go to prison if you can't pay your taxes. You can go to prison for committing fraud while attempting to avoid paying taxes. And that is as it should be.

There is much rightwing BS passed around regarding taxes. In some other thread Hogeye passed along the common howler about folks having to pay 50% of their income in tax. If anyone pays that amount (and there may be a few of them) they need to have their head examined, and they need a new accountant.

My personal, anecdotal experience is that taxes are insignificant. I have never paid more than about $1,500 in federal tax in a year, usually less than a third of that, and usually $100 or $200 in state taxes. Often zero. And of the federal, that amount is really SS, which theoretically all comes back to me anyway. A couple of years ago they sent me, net, $900.

Pay your taxes, don't whine, be happy. It could be worse, we could have anarchy. No income tax in Somalia I bet.

D.

[Betsy]

I agree, Darrel, and I'm not sticking up for Hogeye, but there are other taxes we have to pay - personal property tax and sales tax on everything we buy, plus inheritance taxes, gift taxes, etc. It could add up to a much higher percentage than you think. BUT, without them I guess we wouldn't have roads or libraries or schools and so forth, so there you are.

[Dardedar]

I agree, Darrel, and I'm not sticking up for Hogeye, but there are other taxes we have to pay - personal property tax...

DAR
I just paid mine for last year. It was $459. A good days wage.

and sales tax on everything we buy,

DAR
Right, about 10% or less. But it pays for a lot of neat local stuff, as you point out.

plus inheritance taxes,

DAR
I just checked. The US gov imposes no inheritance tax (but some states might):

***
Inheritance taxes are separate from estate taxes imposed by the federal government and many states.

The Internal Revenue Service collects the estate tax on all U.S. citizens and residents. The tax is levied on the deceased's estate as a whole, filed on a single estate tax return and paid out of the estate's funds. The U.S. government imposes no inheritance tax.

LINK
***

Here is the scoop for Arkansas (none):

***
Inheritance and estate taxes
• Estates are taxed based on the federal estate tax law. The Arkansas tax equals the credit allowed for state death taxes on the federal estate tax return. Since the Arkansas tax is completely offset, there is no additional tax due. There is no inheritance tax.

LINK
***

If you are super rich, the estate tax can hit you. But the repub's are quickly making that one go away (at least for a few years so they can flip their money a generation).

gift taxes, etc.

DAR
I don't know about that one specifically but your right, there are lots of little taxes. Look at the phone bill for one thing!

But consider the context.

Let me tell you a story. You know how someone says something sometimes that you never forget. Fifteen or twenty years ago, I was making chit chat and complaining to my wealthy uncle about my city/water bill going up several dollars. He cut me off like I was a fool and briskly said: "Bah, a good deal at twice the price."

My uncle spends a lot of time in Jamaica and other very poor countries that have large areas that are shit holes. People would love to be able to pay $8 a month to have curbside garbage pickup. Last month I paid $12 for water, and $16 for sewer. A pitance. When you consider, in context, the standard of living we enjoy and the amount of money we can make and our standard of living, my uncle was right. It's a good deal at twice the price. It's just another day in paradise. We musn't forget how good we have it.
My friend Harvey Eubanks would sometimes bitch about money. He owned a farm which he probably sold for a million+, owns several duplexes, drives around in a Ford Expedition etc. For years he made 125 grand plus a year. I would say to him, good grief man, you are going to complain about money? What insanity. Shouldn't it be the billions of people living on a $1 or $2 per day? Context! He was falling in to this keeping up with the Jones American rat race bullshit mentality. Rich is subjective a state of mind! (unless you are completely destitute perhaps). Similarly, taxes to me are insignificant. Certainly a subjective opinion and effected by my being self-employed.

It could add up to a much higher percentage than you think.

DAR
I don't think so. I got my tax numbers from my accountant just a few hours ago. About $700 federal and $300 state. And the federal isn't really tax in that it is suppose to be SS (yeah right). I have actually looked at the numbers. Tax on my home is about $400. Perhaps I am extraordinary but by living sensible and prudently and having a good accountant file about thirty different forms etc., ($150) I practically, and have always, hardly paid anything in actual income tax. It may be near zero. And the rest is piddly when considered in context. IMO.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

SS is only nominally a tax - in that it is collected by the government. SS retirement is a life annuity with disability and dependent insurance riders, "premiums" paid by payroll deductions with employer matching funds. SS as far as Medicare is concerned is health insurance - that is in trouble partly because the only people on it are over 60, and therefore in the "high risk" category, and partly because of escalating medical costs (that tort "deform" isn't going to fix).

I paid about $2500 fed and state taxes last year (including over $900 in SS) plus $360 in property taxes. I'm not counting AR sales tax, as irritating as it is, because of the deduction against my fed income tax which canceled it out. You have to have an inherited an estate to worry about estate taxes (which pertain to about 1% of the US population, since the floor for it to apply is $1,000,000 for singles and being raised). If I round up to $3000 (in case I've forgotten something), I've still paid about 13% in total taxes (again, including SS, which isn't really a tax).

And Darrel's right - wealth is relative. Once you have a safe and sound place to live, "3 squares" a day, and clothing appropriate for the climate, you are rich. Everything else is comparing how much you've got to how much somebody else has. (Sociological stats indicate that in most societies, total wealth doesn't matter, it's how much compared to the neighbors.) Most Americans are wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice compared to most of the rest of the world - I know I am (I've had wealthy-enough-to-visit-America Korean students stay with me), and I live in a 40-year-old, 1,300 sq ft house in a blue-collar neighborhood, drive a 24-year-old Datsun, and make under $25K a year - which puts me in the bottom 25% of American family incomes.

[Hogeye]

SS is only nominally a tax - in that it is collected by the government.

It's mandatory, not voluntary. That makes it robbery. It's collected by the govt, thus it's a tax.

SS retirement is a life annuity with disability and dependent insurance riders, "premiums" paid by payroll deductions with employer matching funds. SS as far as Medicare is concerned is health insurance

Unlike real insurance, the money collected is not invested. It is spent by the govt. If it were real insurance, then it would violate the govt's own insurance fraud laws. In fact, SS is an intergenerational Ponzi scheme.

Most Americans are wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice compared to most of the rest of the world.

I agree. But this doesn't make it okay to rob them!

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

SS money IS invested - in Treasury bonds, which while not as lucretive as the Market sometimes is, are also not as volatile.

[Doug]

SS is only nominally a tax - in that it is collected by the government.

It's mandatory, not voluntary. That makes it robbery. It's collected by the govt, thus it's a tax.

DOUG
Mandatory payment of money is not a sufficient condition to make something an instance of robbery.

According to FindLaw.com, "Many states define robbery as theft/larceny of property or money through the offender's use of physical force or fear against a victim."

OK, and what is theft? "Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken."

So taxes are not theft (or robbery). Our tax laws exist by the consent of the people. To live in this country is to consent to its laws. If you consent to having the government tax you, then they cannot take your property without your consent because you are consenting by living in this society.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Additionally (to Doug's post), Social Security is contributions into a retirement program - and those contributions are matched by the employer - which are returned, when the person reaches retirement age, for the life of the person. Thus, by definition, on 2 counts Social Security is not theft. Theft is not only taking something of value without permission of the owner (the government has permission, since the program was approved in 1933 and all attempts to get rid of it have been strenuously resisted), but theft is also "with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken" and that property is returned by Social Security at a later date, increased in value.

[Hogeye]

SS money IS invested - in Treasury bonds.

LOL! A treasury bond is an IOU - a liability wrt the USE, not an asset. Talk about doublethink! Suppose you gave your home insurance guy $100/mo to insure your home, and he quickly spent it on booze - but wrote an IOU to himself which he carefully kept in a safe. Is your "insurance" backed by his IOU's to himself?

Mandatory payment of money is not a sufficient condition to make something an instance of robbery. According to FindLaw.com, "Many states define robbery as theft/larceny of property or money through the offender's use of physical force or fear against a victim."

Right on, Doug. What makes taxation robbery is the threat of physical force - the State's threat of dispossession and/or imprisonment.

"Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken."

Right again, Doug. Since the State takes value without consent of the owner, taxation is theft.

So taxes are not theft (or robbery).

??? That does not follow at all. You've just shown the opposite.

Our tax laws exist by the consent of the people. To live in this country is to consent to its laws.

Oh, I see now! You do a quick switcheroo on the word "consent." Instead of its normal meaning related to individual choice, suddenly some people can impose "consent" on other people. Foul! Then you give Locke's tired old long-refuted assertion, that by simply occupying space one consents. Sorry, that doesn't wash either. For one thing, it assumes that the State owns all the land (thus any occupant must consent to the owners conditions.) Not a reasonable assumption, and one an anarchist is definitely not going to eat! I 'believe in' individual ownership, not State ownership. I would assert the opposite - that no government property is valid; all has been taken illegitimately by conquest or plunder.

[Doug]

Our tax laws exist by the consent of the people. To live in this country is to consent to its laws.

Oh, I see now! You do a quick switcheroo on the word "consent." Instead of its normal meaning related to individual choice, suddenly some people can impose "consent" on other people. Foul! Then you give Locke's tired old long-refuted assertion, that by simply occupying space one consents. Sorry, that doesn't wash either. For one thing, it assumes that the State owns all the land (thus any occupant must consent to the owners conditions.) Not a reasonable assumption, and one an anarchist is definitely not going to eat! I 'believe in' individual ownership, not State ownership. I would assert the opposite - that no government property is valid; all has been taken illegitimately by conquest or plunder.

DOUG
OK, then by what right can YOU own land? If no one can own land, then your anarchy state is going to be pretty worthless if you can work a farm for months only to find you have no more claim to the land than anyone else.

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> I 'believe in' individual ownership, not State ownership. I would assert the opposite - that no government property is valid; all has been taken illegitimately by conquest or plunder.

Doug> OK, then by what right can YOU own land?

I go by the usual entitlement theory of distributive justice:

1) Something unowned (and economically scarce) becomes property by a combination of temporal priority and use. You know, the old Lockean "mixing labor with" something. Who doubts that the water in the pitcher belongs to he who drew it from the spring. Thus property is created by "natural law" (or contractarians would say mutual agreement), not by rulers' decreed law.

2) Legitimate property which is voluntarily traded/gifted is legitimately owned.

If no one can own land, then your anarchy state is going to be pretty worthless if you can work a farm for months only to find you have no more claim to the land than anyone else.

I agree 100%. That is why I am an anarcho-capitalist, not an old-timey anti-propertarian anarcho-socialist. See my Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ for details.

[Doug]

Hogeye> I 'believe in' individual ownership, not State ownership. I would assert the opposite - that no government property is valid; all has been taken illegitimately by conquest or plunder.

Doug> OK, then by what right can YOU own land?

I go by the usual entitlement theory of distributive justice:

1) Something unowned (and economically scarce) becomes property by a combination of temporal priority and use. You know, the old Lockean "mixing labor with" something. Who doubts that the water in the pitcher belongs to he who drew it from the spring. Thus property is created by "natural law" (or contractarians would say mutual agreement), not by rulers' decreed law.

DOUG
Gee, what if a bunch of people got together and gave some entity the power to represent them so they wouldn't have to all gather and vote every time someone wanted to claim some land? Wouldn't that save a lot of time in a really big society? I would think that would be one of the first things a large society would want to do. And so ends your anarchy, because now you have a collective founding a state out of convenience.

2) Legitimate property which is voluntarily traded/gifted is legitimately owned.

DOUG
You beg the question that it is legitimate. If you question the state's authority, what do you tell someone that questions your authority? Other than begging the question.

[Hogeye]

Gee, what if a bunch of people got together and gave some entity the power to represent them so they wouldn't have to all gather and vote every time someone wanted to claim some land? Wouldn't that save a lot of time...

Yes! Now you're getting it. Such an entity is called a PDA - private defense association. That is exactly what anarchists like me want - voluntary organizations to protect life, liberty, and property. Orgs catering to customers, as opposed to a monopoly outfit.

And so ends your anarchy, because now you have a collective founding a state out of convenience.

??? This does not follow at all. Either you don't know what anarchism is, or you have smuggled the dubious assumption that only a monopoly can possibly provide security services. Needless to say, I don't believe in such government solipotence wrt defense of rights. On the contrary, history shows that such monopolies are the single most dangerous threat to human rights, including property rights.

You beg the question that it is legitimate.

No, I gave a recursive definition of what is legitimate (according to the entitlement theory of justice.) If something unowned is used, then it is legit. If something legit is traded voluntarily, the resulting distribution is legit. Part two may be repeated, retaining legitimacy. If you wish to learn more about the entitlement theory, may I suggest "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by Robert Nozick? He has a chapter or two covering it.