You may not agree, but say you don't agree, don't misrepresent it as if it wasn't actually authorized
- what is happening TODAY is NOT authorised.
What exactly is authorised? Printing of money? It's not. Setting of the interest rates? It's not. Creating all these agencies, from FBI and Fed and IRS to HUD, dep't of energy, dep't of education? They are not authorised. SS, Medicare, EI, welfare, any income redistribution is not authorised (and you can see the journal entry linked from my sig., you may learn something, that at least the personal income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally by IRS from the start).
What is authorised? The undeclared wars? Not one has been declared since WWII.
The bank bail outs? The stimulus packages? The minimum wage laws or any other labour related laws? EPA? FDA? FAA? None of this is authorised.
Congress cannot take its own powers and delegate them to a third party, that is unelected, yet Fed exists.
So I am going to say once again: everything that governments do today is unauthorised.
Yeah, almost all presidents, almost all Congressmen, almost all Senators, almost all judges, they are almost all complicit in this power grab. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions to the rule, they are not the rule.
When another POTUS comes around he wants to do 'great things', well actually he shouldn't be doing any 'great things', he should be upholding the law, that's all.
- actually I absolutely AGREE, I would NOT have ratified that type of Constitution.
There were things in the Constitution that are against my principles, starting with the definition of blacks as being not fully persons and getting into the entire Interstate commerce regulation thing, I wouldn't have allowed it at all.
AFAIC even the original Constitution takes too many freedoms away from individuals and does not limit the government enough, what can I say, I wasn't the one writing it. However the original intent was absolutely different from what is happening right now, if the original intent, the spirit, the idea that the government shouldn't be meddling with business (except for those SPECIFIC authorised powers), there wouldn't be an economic disaster on everybody's hands today.
And you can not be interested in my state,
- I don't care about YOUR State, I would choose a State that didn't get into everybody's business. Texas, Florida, South Dakota, Nevada are getting less into other people's business, I wouldn't choose New York, Connecticut, California for example.
Regulating an act of commerce, not business, not businessmen, not the way companies operate, the act of interstate commerce, the act of trade itself. The government did usurp the power over businesses, labour, etc., but it's unconstitutional, of-course given the right people in the Congress, Senate, White House and SCOTUS, everything can be changed to mean something else.
Coining money does not mean 'printing', it means defining how much weight of gold or silver is in a coin, what the coin looks like, actually minting the coin for you out of your own gold or silver.
Rules for bankruptcies do not regulate the business itself, they regulate the priority of payments, how the bankruptcy is carried out, who gets what in what order.
Your State Constitution I am not interested in, that's why there are 50 States, so that your crazy State is just one of them and people can move from one to another, that's why so many people are moving nowadays to Texas and Florida out of crazy Connecticut or California.
Since the Government Motors company doesn't really have to care about money anymore, it can waste resources on such things rather than working on better cars, they'll be doing these types of gimmicks, then, when they have 'something', the government will pass a LAW that nobody can have a car without such a system installed in it, the rest of the manufacturers will be forced to pay for licensing of these patents and then the prices for the cars will go up and choices for the cars will be diminished in USA.
Final touch will be to ensure that everybody must take their older car to retrofit it with this type of a device. The device will have GPS and who knows what else built into it, will be on a mobile network and it will have the ability to stall the car by a central command.
There will be multiple cameras in the car, some looking forward, some looking back, some looking sideways and a couple looking into the car for good measure, it's all going to be sold as something that's 'necessary' to make the technology work.
Once nobody can drive a car without this type of a package, the government will have access to every vehicle, it's location, the driver and passenger faces, probably some other biometrics. Everything linked and cross-checked against every database, from insurance and driver licensing to CIA and FBI and NSA and DHS and all the rest of it. Face and voice recognition and recording, remote control and a convenient guidance system for your friendly 24/7 police drone monitoring its own 10x10 km zone, maybe with a couple of air to surface missiles.
Oh, did I forget to say that the NDAA approved POTUS authorised kill list may just become on of the cross-references for this system?
Yeah, don't you have any sense to read into the story more beyond what is on the surface? The money that the guy got was not his, he didn't care about it, he didn't care about the profit.
You are saying he is a 'bad businessman', so that is why the private money market recognised it and DID NOT GIVE HIM MONEY FOR THIS NONSENSE VENTURE.
The government shouldn't be in business subsidising any businesses, the 'good' business will have private investors who will recognise it as such, take the risk and maybe make money if they are right, but there will be ACCOUNTABILITY TO THOSE INVESTORS.
Where is the accountability to the general public - the tax payers who got fleeced? He is a 'bad businessman' you are saying? So why is the tax payer subsidising him?
It is the fault of the government for STEALING MONEY from tax payers to give it to any business, never mind 'good' or 'bad'. What, you didn't have enough bank bailouts? What a tool.
First of all, when the industrial revolution happened in USA, the farmers didn't leave, the outcome was that much fewer people (under 6%) could feed the country, so this was a huge productivity spike, the output became much cheaper because of it, it is the US farmers who could produce food much cheaper than others, that's the point of productivity gains - you can have more productivity with less effort.
All US farm bills have been combating the problem of the Federal reserve and Treasury debt, the problem of growing government and regulations. Unfortunately for the USA, its people are so stupid, that they turned the Republic into this nightmarish democracy, which voted for the lowest common denominator type of politician - the politician who promises more government, more regulations, theft from those who produce in order to subsidise those who don't.
The reason that it's cheaper to produce food elsewhere rather than in USA is simple - the government is too big, and so US production is inefficient, it's expensive, it is uncompetitive.
When USA became the industrial country, it didn't lose its farming, it just could do it much more efficiently. USA gov't subsidises the farming corporations by taxing and growing government on one hand, on the other the prices of food are much higher than they should be, there is huge amount of artificial demand as well through individual subsidies, like the Food Stamps, so the real tax payers (those who actually truly foot the bill), they are hit many times over.
First they are taxed to subsidise the inefficient overly expensive food producers in USA.
Then they are taxed to subsidise the inefficient and unproductive people who get various food subsidise, like the food stamps.
Then they are taxed some more, because all of the money that could go into efficiencies, into building an actual economy in USA is spent by government on all these projects that shouldn't be done in USA if USA cannot do them.
Saying that other countries would raise prices of food if they were the only ones selling it to USA. Well, 90% of all sea food comes to USA from Asia. 90% is not 100%, but it just as well could be.
The reason anybody would stop trading wouldn't be out of spite, that's irrational. The reason would be this: they couldn't GET anything back from this trade. And today it's the truth already - nobody can get anything from USA for all the stuff they supply it with, they are piling up the dollars and bonds, what are they getting in return?
So that's why foreigners are buying up whatever assets from USA that do have some value, that's why Deutsche Boerse was trying to buy NYSE (of-course USA gov't is blocking all such attempts, which only signals to the rest of the world - don't take US money, you can't get anything for it).
The farmers didn't move out of USA over the last 100 years because the government is subsidising them specifically, it's the OTHER business that left USA, the business that is TAXED to subsidise the farmers. Didn't you notice?
There is no difference between pre-industrial and post-industrial economy, they are the same type of economy.
The only place the government is 'right' to interfere is where it is authorised, and it's not authorised to interfere in any business activity, it's not the purpose of the government and it can never be a legitimate role.
Not food, not power, not health care, not insurance, not housing, not banking, not finance, not construction, not education, not anything that is outside of why the government is actually needed - protection of individuals from foreign powers and ensuring that the government does not abuse its own power. That's right, the real legitimate reason to have a Republic is to ensure that a dictatorial or a totalitarian form of control does not arise to power, it's to DISMISS power, not to invite it.
As to power and food being produced elsewhere - if the government interferes with the market, it's exactly what's going to happen - all things will be made elsewhere, and you'll have no savings at all to restart any industry, you'll be back to subsistence farming and gathering or hunting, good luck having any sort of progress then.
You know what your problem is? You are completely perfect for this system.
What are you, that dense? Terse even? The government shouldn't be taxing some people to give it to others, including these 'guaranteed loans', he shouldn't be able to find money for his ideas in government if no private enterprise wants to fund him.
There is a REASON why he couldn't find private money for his stupid ideas and this story just proves that the private sector was right, and you are as dumb as they come, it's staring right into you, and you still don't get it.
The companyâ(TM)s death was grisly: Before going under, it defaulted on the $75 million guaranteed loan that the state of Rhode Island had used in 2010 to lure it to Providence. As the money ran out, the company encouraged its 379 employees to continue coming into work, even though it knew it could not pay them. Staffers realized theyâ(TM)d been stiffed only when they noticed the money missing from their bank accounts. A pregnant woman had to find out from her doctor that her healthcare benefits had been cut off.
- like all the other government loan guarantees, and all other types of moral hazards created by the government, this business was failing with a much bigger bang because of them.
Without gov't loan guarantees, the guy couldn't spend that much money on a losing business, the tax payers wouldn't be footing the bill, the taxes didn't have to be collected, the money could have stayed in the private hands, banks or VC firms, the risk would have been managed better.
Companies must go bankrupt, they must blow up, it's a healthy thing - that's how the free market allocates the scarce resources (land, capital, labour) efficiently. This means that money is not wasted further, once the profits stop and losses start, the company has to restructure, it has to be made more efficient, it has to be made profitable or it has to die.
So many people don't understand that profitability is the only true indicator of whether the scarce resources should be spent in any particular way. The problem with government getting into any business is precisely this: there is no price discovery and there is no accountability because the profits don't matter for much longer (until the company in question or the entire economy tanks).
no no, he had to get another good drive that is the same as the failing drive and drill mirroring holes in these 2 drives and then tape them together so the holes would line up, but make sure that the bad drive is on top. Place both of the drives on an old vinyl player, all of this goes into a fridge, and then spin the turntable.
He'd have to calculate the appropriate number of turns of the turntable, it has to be precisely proportionate to the number of the revolutions a disk inside the HD would rotate in order for the reading head to read all of the data from the disk.
Oh, I forgot, he has to kill a puppy and poor puppy blood into both drives before sticking them together, the iron in the blood of a puppy acts as read/write heads would, in fact they use puppy blood during HD manufacturing process. The quality of the HD is directly proportionate to the cuteness of the puppy, the cutter the puppy, the higher the quality.
Out of all the words you chose to use 'value', why? What is the value in that? It would be much better if 10960 companies out of 204 countries came together to exchange information in terms of value.
If you think Olympics does anything to help 'world peace' or some such nonsense, well then you haven't been paying attention, it does nothing for that.
He argues that US money, not backed by gold, are not actually money and therefore being paid in dollars does not constitute the receipt of taxable income
- wrong. You didn't read the link in my signature, which is part of the legal argument supporting the fact that at least the personal income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally, so you are making up nonsense, it's not what he is saying at all. You are making up nonsense out of straw and then are attacking your own nonsense straw argument.
Irwin Schiff did participate in the Congressional hearings back in January of 1968, where he was the ONLY person on the panel to say that the price of gold in US dollars will go UP and will not stay or fall, as the rest of the people who were testifying were predicting (or really they weren't predicting anything, they were part of the propaganda machine), and fiat currency is by definition not real money, it's money by gov't decree, but that is NOT part of his argument, so you are spitting out nonsense and are attacking your own nonsense.
Except when we start talking about necessities I'd need to buy them or die.
- no store is forcing you to buy from them, you don't have to buy anything not to die, you can go become a farmer and feed yourself, you can hunt and gather whatever you can, nobody is forcing you to buy from any specific store.
As to your second statement: nothing "belongs" to Earth, Earth doesn't have interest in possessing anything, people do, because people make a conscious choice TO WORK to produce.
It's not about the resource that you are buying, it's about the work somebody has done - you are not forced to buy into other people's efforts in the free market, a government must not be in business of any kind beyond its authority - protecting people's freedoms.
The gov't shouldn't be in any business, not infrastructure, not health care or insurance, not food, not manufacturing, not anything except existing for the purpose of protection of the freedoms of the individuals, and the freedoms are not to be made into slaves by other people, not to be attacked and destroyed by other nations, not to have property stolen by other nations.
Government isn't even supposed to care about protecting you from other individuals within the State, that is a private individual or business responsibility, it's up to private security and contract law.
Gov't must ensure that it does not itself become tyrannical and does not become what it is supposed to protect the individuals from, so it must not be stealing, killing, jailing people for no reason as it does now.
Gov't shouldn't be in business owning property and then allowing private companies to mine on public land, if there is a private interest in doing business on some land, that land must be private, it must be auctioned off, sold off, then there is no argument that you could make about 'stealing from everybody else'. When the land is privately owned, the mine on it or a factory on it or a farm on it or a house on it, whatever, it's private property and it's been bid on in the free market, so the price that the owner paid satisfies the market demand and efficiency.
Stores are not forcing you to buy anything from them with the threat of violence, there is no store owner coming to your doors with a gun if you don't buy, is there? You can follow the link in my sig to learn something.
How can we rake in the bucks and rip off the people?
- 'ripping off people' is a good approach if you have access to government. Buy a few politicians, change a few rules, maybe only one rule - get a preferential tax rate or have the government set the rule of requiring licenses in your field for all the new entrants, then consolidate, a buy out or two, preferably backed by government guaranteed loans.
oh and also his last sentence (he served 4 sentences over this issue in his life), it's 13 years in prison to a 78 y.o. guy, who represents no danger to society (of-course he represents the danger to the government), out of which he served 7 or 8 already. I wonder how many violent criminals get out before they spend 7 or 8 or 13 years in prison. He is 84 or 85 now, clearly the gov't has an agenda, and it's to kill him. Don't they always run a documentary about him around the time the income taxes are collected by the IRS every year?
Your earnings can be expressed in anything, from dollars to pounds of sugar, and it's not worthless just because you get more dollars than pounds of sugar for your work. Your argument makes no sense, because the money that the person gets for his work is still exchanged for his time and effort and investment, and it can be exchanged for other people's productive output. US dollars are worth 1% of what they were worth in 1913, but even at 1% things can be bought because of increase of productivity.
It is irrelevant what the money is worth, the question is that of the principle - the government is stealing people's property, their income is their property. If somebody steals your old t-shirt, it's still theft, though you may not be able to sell it for any amount of money, so it may be almost worthless except it is yours anyway.
As to your assertion that Irwin is wrong on his reading of the law, well, in my sig you can read part of the argument that the income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally in USA.
AFAIC he is correct and the government is pursuing him not only despite the fact that he is correct, but specifically because he is.
If he were wrong in this, the gov't didn't have to make sure that his legal arguments never made it into the court room, the jury was never allowed to listen to the legal argument of why he believes the government is collecting the taxes illegally. I am convinced that the jury wouldn't find it as dry and cut as you find it, specifically because I also studied this specific question and I understand at least part of Irwin's legal argument, though he is much more proficient in the tax code and tax law.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, that would be over 6 billion people on that list.
You may not agree, but say you don't agree, don't misrepresent it as if it wasn't actually authorized
- what is happening TODAY is NOT authorised.
What exactly is authorised? Printing of money? It's not. Setting of the interest rates? It's not. Creating all these agencies, from FBI and Fed and IRS to HUD, dep't of energy, dep't of education? They are not authorised. SS, Medicare, EI, welfare, any income redistribution is not authorised (and you can see the journal entry linked from my sig., you may learn something, that at least the personal income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally by IRS from the start).
What is authorised? The undeclared wars? Not one has been declared since WWII.
The bank bail outs?
The stimulus packages?
The minimum wage laws or any other labour related laws?
EPA? FDA? FAA? None of this is authorised.
Congress cannot take its own powers and delegate them to a third party, that is unelected, yet Fed exists.
So I am going to say once again: everything that governments do today is unauthorised.
Yeah, almost all presidents, almost all Congressmen, almost all Senators, almost all judges, they are almost all complicit in this power grab. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions to the rule, they are not the rule.
When another POTUS comes around he wants to do 'great things', well actually he shouldn't be doing any 'great things', he should be upholding the law, that's all.
Ah, so any mass murderer needs to get himself a FB account immediately, just to stay clear of such stupid generalisations.
and you really should own up to it.
- actually I absolutely AGREE, I would NOT have ratified that type of Constitution.
There were things in the Constitution that are against my principles, starting with the definition of blacks as being not fully persons and getting into the entire Interstate commerce regulation thing, I wouldn't have allowed it at all.
AFAIC even the original Constitution takes too many freedoms away from individuals and does not limit the government enough, what can I say, I wasn't the one writing it. However the original intent was absolutely different from what is happening right now, if the original intent, the spirit, the idea that the government shouldn't be meddling with business (except for those SPECIFIC authorised powers), there wouldn't be an economic disaster on everybody's hands today.
And you can not be interested in my state,
- I don't care about YOUR State, I would choose a State that didn't get into everybody's business. Texas, Florida, South Dakota, Nevada are getting less into other people's business, I wouldn't choose New York, Connecticut, California for example.
Regulating an act of commerce, not business, not businessmen, not the way companies operate, the act of interstate commerce, the act of trade itself. The government did usurp the power over businesses, labour, etc., but it's unconstitutional, of-course given the right people in the Congress, Senate, White House and SCOTUS, everything can be changed to mean something else.
Coining money does not mean 'printing', it means defining how much weight of gold or silver is in a coin, what the coin looks like, actually minting the coin for you out of your own gold or silver.
Rules for bankruptcies do not regulate the business itself, they regulate the priority of payments, how the bankruptcy is carried out, who gets what in what order.
Your State Constitution I am not interested in, that's why there are 50 States, so that your crazy State is just one of them and people can move from one to another, that's why so many people are moving nowadays to Texas and Florida out of crazy Connecticut or California.
Since the Government Motors company doesn't really have to care about money anymore, it can waste resources on such things rather than working on better cars, they'll be doing these types of gimmicks, then, when they have 'something', the government will pass a LAW that nobody can have a car without such a system installed in it, the rest of the manufacturers will be forced to pay for licensing of these patents and then the prices for the cars will go up and choices for the cars will be diminished in USA.
Final touch will be to ensure that everybody must take their older car to retrofit it with this type of a device. The device will have GPS and who knows what else built into it, will be on a mobile network and it will have the ability to stall the car by a central command.
There will be multiple cameras in the car, some looking forward, some looking back, some looking sideways and a couple looking into the car for good measure, it's all going to be sold as something that's 'necessary' to make the technology work.
Once nobody can drive a car without this type of a package, the government will have access to every vehicle, it's location, the driver and passenger faces, probably some other biometrics. Everything linked and cross-checked against every database, from insurance and driver licensing to CIA and FBI and NSA and DHS and all the rest of it. Face and voice recognition and recording, remote control and a convenient guidance system for your friendly 24/7 police drone monitoring its own 10x10 km zone, maybe with a couple of air to surface missiles.
Oh, did I forget to say that the NDAA approved POTUS authorised kill list may just become on of the cross-references for this system?
Yeah, don't you have any sense to read into the story more beyond what is on the surface? The money that the guy got was not his, he didn't care about it, he didn't care about the profit.
You are saying he is a 'bad businessman', so that is why the private money market recognised it and DID NOT GIVE HIM MONEY FOR THIS NONSENSE VENTURE.
The government shouldn't be in business subsidising any businesses, the 'good' business will have private investors who will recognise it as such, take the risk and maybe make money if they are right, but there will be ACCOUNTABILITY TO THOSE INVESTORS.
Where is the accountability to the general public - the tax payers who got fleeced? He is a 'bad businessman' you are saying? So why is the tax payer subsidising him?
It is the fault of the government for STEALING MONEY from tax payers to give it to any business, never mind 'good' or 'bad'. What, you didn't have enough bank bailouts? What a tool.
First of all, when the industrial revolution happened in USA, the farmers didn't leave, the outcome was that much fewer people (under 6%) could feed the country, so this was a huge productivity spike, the output became much cheaper because of it, it is the US farmers who could produce food much cheaper than others, that's the point of productivity gains - you can have more productivity with less effort.
All US farm bills have been combating the problem of the Federal reserve and Treasury debt, the problem of growing government and regulations. Unfortunately for the USA, its people are so stupid, that they turned the Republic into this nightmarish democracy, which voted for the lowest common denominator type of politician - the politician who promises more government, more regulations, theft from those who produce in order to subsidise those who don't.
The reason that it's cheaper to produce food elsewhere rather than in USA is simple - the government is too big, and so US production is inefficient, it's expensive, it is uncompetitive.
When USA became the industrial country, it didn't lose its farming, it just could do it much more efficiently. USA gov't subsidises the farming corporations by taxing and growing government on one hand, on the other the prices of food are much higher than they should be, there is huge amount of artificial demand as well through individual subsidies, like the Food Stamps, so the real tax payers (those who actually truly foot the bill), they are hit many times over.
First they are taxed to subsidise the inefficient overly expensive food producers in USA.
Then they are taxed to subsidise the inefficient and unproductive people who get various food subsidise, like the food stamps.
Then they are taxed some more, because all of the money that could go into efficiencies, into building an actual economy in USA is spent by government on all these projects that shouldn't be done in USA if USA cannot do them.
Saying that other countries would raise prices of food if they were the only ones selling it to USA. Well, 90% of all sea food comes to USA from Asia. 90% is not 100%, but it just as well could be.
The reason anybody would stop trading wouldn't be out of spite, that's irrational. The reason would be this: they couldn't GET anything back from this trade. And today it's the truth already - nobody can get anything from USA for all the stuff they supply it with, they are piling up the dollars and bonds, what are they getting in return?
So that's why foreigners are buying up whatever assets from USA that do have some value, that's why Deutsche Boerse was trying to buy NYSE (of-course USA gov't is blocking all such attempts, which only signals to the rest of the world - don't take US money, you can't get anything for it).
The farmers didn't move out of USA over the last 100 years because the government is subsidising them specifically, it's the OTHER business that left USA, the business that is TAXED to subsidise the farmers. Didn't you notice?
There is no difference between pre-industrial and post-industrial economy, they are the same type of economy.
The only place the government is 'right' to interfere is where it is authorised, and it's not authorised to interfere in any business activity, it's not the purpose of the government and it can never be a legitimate role.
Not food, not power, not health care, not insurance, not housing, not banking, not finance, not construction, not education, not anything that is outside of why the government is actually needed - protection of individuals from foreign powers and ensuring that the government does not abuse its own power. That's right, the real legitimate reason to have a Republic is to ensure that a dictatorial or a totalitarian form of control does not arise to power, it's to DISMISS power, not to invite it.
As to power and food being produced elsewhere - if the government interferes with the market, it's exactly what's going to happen - all things will be made elsewhere, and you'll have no savings at all to restart any industry, you'll be back to subsistence farming and gathering or hunting, good luck having any sort of progress then.
You know what your problem is? You are completely perfect for this system.
What are you, that dense? Terse even? The government shouldn't be taxing some people to give it to others, including these 'guaranteed loans', he shouldn't be able to find money for his ideas in government if no private enterprise wants to fund him.
There is a REASON why he couldn't find private money for his stupid ideas and this story just proves that the private sector was right, and you are as dumb as they come, it's staring right into you, and you still don't get it.
The companyâ(TM)s death was grisly: Before going under, it defaulted on the $75 million guaranteed loan that the state of Rhode Island had used in 2010 to lure it to Providence. As the money ran out, the company encouraged its 379 employees to continue coming into work, even though it knew it could not pay them. Staffers realized theyâ(TM)d been stiffed only when they noticed the money missing from their bank accounts. A pregnant woman had to find out from her doctor that her healthcare benefits had been cut off.
- like all the other government loan guarantees, and all other types of moral hazards created by the government, this business was failing with a much bigger bang because of them.
Without gov't loan guarantees, the guy couldn't spend that much money on a losing business, the tax payers wouldn't be footing the bill, the taxes didn't have to be collected, the money could have stayed in the private hands, banks or VC firms, the risk would have been managed better.
Companies must go bankrupt, they must blow up, it's a healthy thing - that's how the free market allocates the scarce resources (land, capital, labour) efficiently. This means that money is not wasted further, once the profits stop and losses start, the company has to restructure, it has to be made more efficient, it has to be made profitable or it has to die.
So many people don't understand that profitability is the only true indicator of whether the scarce resources should be spent in any particular way. The problem with government getting into any business is precisely this: there is no price discovery and there is no accountability because the profits don't matter for much longer (until the company in question or the entire economy tanks).
Boy was he happy to get all his porn back.
- FTFY.
no no, he had to get another good drive that is the same as the failing drive and drill mirroring holes in these 2 drives and then tape them together so the holes would line up, but make sure that the bad drive is on top. Place both of the drives on an old vinyl player, all of this goes into a fridge, and then spin the turntable.
He'd have to calculate the appropriate number of turns of the turntable, it has to be precisely proportionate to the number of the revolutions a disk inside the HD would rotate in order for the reading head to read all of the data from the disk.
Oh, I forgot, he has to kill a puppy and poor puppy blood into both drives before sticking them together, the iron in the blood of a puppy acts as read/write heads would, in fact they use puppy blood during HD manufacturing process. The quality of the HD is directly proportionate to the cuteness of the puppy, the cutter the puppy, the higher the quality.
Out of all the words you chose to use 'value', why? What is the value in that? It would be much better if 10960 companies out of 204 countries came together to exchange information in terms of value.
If you think Olympics does anything to help 'world peace' or some such nonsense, well then you haven't been paying attention, it does nothing for that.
He argues that US money, not backed by gold, are not actually money and therefore being paid in dollars does not constitute the receipt of taxable income
- wrong. You didn't read the link in my signature, which is part of the legal argument supporting the fact that at least the personal income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally, so you are making up nonsense, it's not what he is saying at all. You are making up nonsense out of straw and then are attacking your own nonsense straw argument.
Irwin Schiff did participate in the Congressional hearings back in January of 1968, where he was the ONLY person on the panel to say that the price of gold in US dollars will go UP and will not stay or fall, as the rest of the people who were testifying were predicting (or really they weren't predicting anything, they were part of the propaganda machine), and fiat currency is by definition not real money, it's money by gov't decree, but that is NOT part of his argument, so you are spitting out nonsense and are attacking your own nonsense.
Except when we start talking about necessities I'd need to buy them or die.
- no store is forcing you to buy from them, you don't have to buy anything not to die, you can go become a farmer and feed yourself, you can hunt and gather whatever you can, nobody is forcing you to buy from any specific store.
As to your second statement: nothing "belongs" to Earth, Earth doesn't have interest in possessing anything, people do, because people make a conscious choice TO WORK to produce.
It's not about the resource that you are buying, it's about the work somebody has done - you are not forced to buy into other people's efforts in the free market, a government must not be in business of any kind beyond its authority - protecting people's freedoms.
The gov't shouldn't be in any business, not infrastructure, not health care or insurance, not food, not manufacturing, not anything except existing for the purpose of protection of the freedoms of the individuals, and the freedoms are not to be made into slaves by other people, not to be attacked and destroyed by other nations, not to have property stolen by other nations.
Government isn't even supposed to care about protecting you from other individuals within the State, that is a private individual or business responsibility, it's up to private security and contract law.
Gov't must ensure that it does not itself become tyrannical and does not become what it is supposed to protect the individuals from, so it must not be stealing, killing, jailing people for no reason as it does now.
Gov't shouldn't be in business owning property and then allowing private companies to mine on public land, if there is a private interest in doing business on some land, that land must be private, it must be auctioned off, sold off, then there is no argument that you could make about 'stealing from everybody else'. When the land is privately owned, the mine on it or a factory on it or a farm on it or a house on it, whatever, it's private property and it's been bid on in the free market, so the price that the owner paid satisfies the market demand and efficiency.
Stores are not forcing you to buy anything from them with the threat of violence, there is no store owner coming to your doors with a gun if you don't buy, is there? You can follow the link in my sig to learn something.
"How can we leverage sex in the business?
- well, sex sells.
How can we rake in the bucks and rip off the people?
- 'ripping off people' is a good approach if you have access to government. Buy a few politicians, change a few rules, maybe only one rule - get a preferential tax rate or have the government set the rule of requiring licenses in your field for all the new entrants, then consolidate, a buy out or two, preferably backed by government guaranteed loans.
oh and also his last sentence (he served 4 sentences over this issue in his life), it's 13 years in prison to a 78 y.o. guy, who represents no danger to society (of-course he represents the danger to the government), out of which he served 7 or 8 already. I wonder how many violent criminals get out before they spend 7 or 8 or 13 years in prison. He is 84 or 85 now, clearly the gov't has an agenda, and it's to kill him. Don't they always run a documentary about him around the time the income taxes are collected by the IRS every year?
Your earnings can be expressed in anything, from dollars to pounds of sugar, and it's not worthless just because you get more dollars than pounds of sugar for your work. Your argument makes no sense, because the money that the person gets for his work is still exchanged for his time and effort and investment, and it can be exchanged for other people's productive output. US dollars are worth 1% of what they were worth in 1913, but even at 1% things can be bought because of increase of productivity.
It is irrelevant what the money is worth, the question is that of the principle - the government is stealing people's property, their income is their property. If somebody steals your old t-shirt, it's still theft, though you may not be able to sell it for any amount of money, so it may be almost worthless except it is yours anyway.
As to your assertion that Irwin is wrong on his reading of the law, well, in my sig you can read part of the argument that the income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally in USA.
AFAIC he is correct and the government is pursuing him not only despite the fact that he is correct, but specifically because he is.
If he were wrong in this, the gov't didn't have to make sure that his legal arguments never made it into the court room, the jury was never allowed to listen to the legal argument of why he believes the government is collecting the taxes illegally. I am convinced that the jury wouldn't find it as dry and cut as you find it, specifically because I also studied this specific question and I understand at least part of Irwin's legal argument, though he is much more proficient in the tax code and tax law.
Not just last 8 years, it's been this way for much longer than that.
It's nothing new.
This shouldn't be a surprise, it's been this way in USA for a very long time now.
It's been that way for quite some time, at the very minimum since the eighties.