i completely agree with you. and of course another benefit to your reasoned
discourse is effecting change.
phillip
btw, re: your irs comment, i think it would be well worth the expense to see
through each case to the supreme court. as a washington, DC resident this
issue holds special meaning for me. i've been tempted by the dc
representation issue to stop paying federal taxes in protest (and continue
to pay dc taxes.) the license plate i recently received for my car states:
"no taxation without representation" (this appears on all new dc license
plates), and in fact i know people who claim they're not filing federal tax
returns in protest -- i'm not quite that brave. (for those who aren't aware
of this situation, DC residents are not given voting representation in
congress and only in 1971 were allowed to vote for president...this is akin
to a territory, except unlike other territories, DC residents must pay
federal income taxes.) i say this: if we're treated like a territory, let's
enjoy the same benefits (no federal income taxes)...otherwise give us
statehood (sorry for the soapbox.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Blanc
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Interventions r gud
>
>
>
> Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
>
> i clearly understand your point. where bell and i differ seems to
> be in the
> perception of the role of the individual working for the govt --
> it appears
> to me that bell equates the individual as the govt and so can
> direct action
> against the individual. . . .
> -----------
>
>
> If an individual identifies him/herself as the leadership of an evil
> government vs the innocent citizens - then he equates that individual with
> the evil government.
>
> I also disagree with Jim's idea on the proper and effective method of
> dealing with the problem of being educated to expect the opposite
> of what we
> actually receive. He forgets that in a free world, only the support of a
> majority of the citizens can maintain the status quo, even if that support
> is based on ignorance, presumption, or deception and results in a
> debasement
> of their character.
>
> The reason for having courts and and all those procedures of "due process"
> are so that Reason may live - so that people may take the time to examine
> actions and methods and determine what is the right way to live
> together and
> what is justice for all, etc. and achieve consent on the matter. Jim's
> method precludes all that activity, a very valuable intellectual exercise
> which can (potentially) achieve an understanding of the facts of reality,
> essential for humans living in arrangements based on abstract ideals.
>
> My preferred method of dealing, for instance, with the IRS would
> be a long,
> protracted court case wherin the proponents are slowly skewered by nine
> sharp Supremes. I'd contribute $1 on the yearly tax form to that. And sign
> it with my Real Name.
>
> ..
> Blanc
>
>
