Wesley Snipes v. IRS

[srqrebel]

Without knowing the exact moral argument its largely speculation. The moral argument may not be so broad as to include large masses of others.

Not sure what you mean by "moral" argument.  Violations of individual rights are not moral issues at all by my definition, but criminal.  When an actual, objective crime occurs, hence a deliberate act by one sovereign individual that violates the equal rights of another sovereign individual, there is no moral argument to be made at all -- that is purely a criminal act.  That designation is non-negotiable, else the whole concept of individual sovereignty and equality falls apart.

Morals are additional ideals of right vs. wrong that do not affect the sovereignty of other individuals, hence left to the personal judgement of each individual.  For example, some people consider gambling immoral, and the logical argument is that it ultimately leads to financial ruin.  Yet even if one gambles to the point of sustaining financial ruin, the only victim is a voluntary one: Oneself -- hence it is a moral issue, and no individual has the right to forcibly impose their judgement of this issue upon another.

[Caleb]

I think you're reading too much into it, Menno.

Morality is a law written on your heart. Do not kill. If you kill, it is immoral. If you break your oath to love your wife forever and cheat on her, well, that is immoral too.

The difference is that some of the moral law man has chosen to make "crimes", meaning that it is a divine moral law backed up with a human threat of violence. Kill someone? Criminal. Cheat on your wife? No crime there. Both are violations of the moral law, though.

[srqrebel]

I think you're reading too much into it, Menno.

Morality is a law written on your heart. Do not kill. If you kill, it is immoral. If you break your oath to love your wife forever and cheat on her, well, that is immoral too.

The difference is that some of the moral law man has chosen to make "crimes", meaning that it is a divine moral law backed up with a human threat of violence. Kill someone? Criminal. Cheat on your wife? No crime there. Both are violations of the moral law, though.

Good point.  Just because something is a violation of the (equal) boundaries of individuals, hence a crime, certainly does not preclude it from being immoral as well.  My point is simply that such acts are more than mere moral issues which are strictly the domain of each individual, and are therefore best referred to as crimes, for the sake of clarity.

My previous post does indeed contain terms that are a bit too absolute.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Does this mean that "Blade: IRS" will be out soon?

[dalebert]

Does this mean that "Blade: IRS" will be out soon?

Boom! Cartoon idea- right there.

[J’raxis 270145]

Without knowing the exact moral argument its largely speculation. The moral argument may not be so broad as to include large masses of others.

Not sure what you mean by "moral" argument.  Violations of individual rights are not moral issues at all by my definition, but criminal.  When an actual, objective crime occurs, hence a deliberate act by one sovereign individual that violates the equal rights of another sovereign individual, there is no moral argument to be made at all -- that is purely a criminal act.  That designation is non-negotiable, else the whole concept of individual sovereignty and equality falls apart.

Morals are additional ideals of right vs. wrong that do not affect the sovereignty of other individuals, hence left to the personal judgement of each individual.  For example, some people consider gambling immoral, and the logical argument is that it ultimately leads to financial ruin.  Yet even if one gambles to the point of sustaining financial ruin, the only victim is a voluntary one: Oneself -- hence it is a moral issue, and no individual has the right to forcibly impose their judgement of this issue upon another.

In my way of looking at things, the only immoral act is the violation of individual sovereignty (that is, violation of the moral principle of non-aggression), so immoral and criminal are more or less equivalent. All other values that people describe as "morals" I consider to just be personal preference, since they vary so much between different people or different blocs (e.g., religions, philosophies, ideologies).

[srqrebel]

Yeah, it's unfortunate that so many important words mean different things to different people.   It makes efficient communication very difficult at times.

It is my responsibility to communicate clearly, or not at all -- so I try to define my word usage as much as necessary.  I'm not sure how else to deal with this problem.

[David]

Carl Watner authored a pamphlet entitled Silence: The Ultimate Protector of Individual Rights.  In it, he traces the history of the recognition of individual rights, and tries to make a case for standing silent in front of one's accusers (precisely what Lauren does).  Still, I am not completely sold on this idea.  IMO, Dale nailed it perfectly when he said, "What the hell is the point of a conscientious objection if you don't explain why you object? If no one learns from it? The point of such a thing is to affect a positive change in society".

You could do both. You can speak to *others* whereas being silent before your oppressors. I think that's a good strategy because the whole point is that you don't acknowledge the authority of those oppressing you. It's hard to beat the old silent treatment for making someone feel ... well, less like you respect his authority.

Agree.  However, I want my accuser to know why I will not cooperate.  It depends on my disgust/fear level I have with my accusers though. 

[John Edward Mercier]

You'll have to explain. How is one 'sovereign' and afraid?

[srqrebel]

You'll have to explain. How is one 'sovereign' and afraid?

I'll let David provide his own explanation, but your question begs a question in response: What would make the two incompatible?

Sovereignty is an inherent, permanent characteristic of the conscious individual, whether it is honored or not.  Fear is the natural response to an individual's natural sovereignty being unnaturally violated by another.

Just curious, does right mean might to you?

[David]

Srqrebel summed it up nicely. 

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hqRdIQN43C8lgKXjzAris2-Xu0YAD8UFR8CG1

[John Edward Mercier]

You'll have to explain. How is one 'sovereign' and afraid?

I'll let David provide his own explanation, but your question begs a question in response: What would make the two incompatible?

Sovereignty is an inherent, permanent characteristic of the conscious individual, whether it is honored or not.  Fear is the natural response to an individual's natural sovereignty being unnaturally violated by another.

Just curious, does right mean might to you?

Not to seem rude, but I think you mean 'might mean right'. But I think you discovered my meaning as this quote from another section shows.

'Amen bro!

Our own internal fears are our worst enemies.  It is extremely important to replace fear with courage wherever possible.'

Though I would argue all fears are internal, and can understand ones determination that a particular action/situation is not in their self-interest, I believe it (along with greed) to be a external controlling factor. It creates a victim mentality that is very debilitating.

[coffeeseven]

Wesley Snipes' Jury Concludes Second Day of Deliberations Without Reaching Verdict; YouTube Video Undercuts Star Prosecution Witness

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/01/wesley-snipes-j.html

Channel 9 has uncovered video that could give actor Wesley Snipes a reason to appeal, if he's convicted of tax fraud.

http://www.wftv.com/news/15188108/detail.html

[srqrebel]

Not to seem rude, but I think you mean 'might mean right'. But I think you discovered my meaning as this quote from another section shows.

'Amen bro!

Our own internal fears are our worst enemies.  It is extremely important to replace fear with courage wherever possible.'

Though I would argue all fears are internal, and can understand ones determination that a particular action/situation is not in their self-interest, I believe it (along with greed) to be a external controlling factor. It creates a victim mentality that is very debilitating.

I completely agree... and very well stated!