Wesley Snipes v. IRS

[Caleb]

No, and it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he would have used the moral position instead of the "show me the law" position.

...wait, do you mean appealing to morality in front of a government judge?  Or in the form of civil disobedience asserting his sovereignty, in order to make a moral appeal to the people?

Just wondering... since appealing to morality in front of a gov't judge seems a lot like casting pearls to the swine.

The first time I heard about Wesley Snipes' tax protest was when they issued a warrant for his arrest. I think he was out of the country at the time, if I remember correctly. Before that, very few of us even knew that he was resisting his taxes. It seems like that's the way it is with the "show me the law" guys. Most of them are hoping to fly under the radar, and then they get caught and figure they'll try their legal defense.

I wish that Snipes had been vocal from the start. He should have gone on Leno, Letterman, the Daily Show, whoever would have him on the show and let everyone know that he doesn't pay federal taxes, and the reasons why: The Federal government has no authority to tax a person without their consent, it uses the money for immoral purposes, to wage war, inflict crimes on peoples in other countries, etc. The federal government might still have come after him, but he would have got a lot more people on his side than he does now. And I think odds are they would have ignored him, because that moral fight isn't the one they want plastered all over the news, since they can't win it. They can win their legal crap.

[David]

Agree completely Caleb. 

[srqrebel]

Wow, I couldn't agree with you more, Caleb!  Thank you for clarifying    

[John Edward Mercier]

The morality issue requires one to be silent. In general, if not you've made it political... which defeats the moral question. Conscientious objection is personal, not political.

[dalebert]

The morality issue requires one to be silent. In general, if not you've made it political... which defeats the moral question. Conscientious objection is personal, not political.

Say huh? It's like a big steamy turd just plopped out of your mouth and onto the floor and now we're all just staring at it, confused. 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.

[John Edward Mercier]

Because morality is individualistic, politics are not.
Ali did not seek media coverage or march against conscription, or the war for that matter. When he was drafted he refused... when asked he made his case.

[kola]

Most folks who do not pay taxes do not go around advertising. Kola

[srqrebel]

Most folks who do not pay taxes do not go around advertising. Kola

True indeed!

Too bad many of those who are motivated to resist don't put much thought into maximizing their efforts.  Their activism could be vastly more effective if they did.

I think that is the point Caleb was making.

[srqrebel]

The morality issue requires one to be silent. In general, if not you've made it political... which defeats the moral question. Conscientious objection is personal, not political.

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".

It is true that to date most cases of activists 'speaking out' on issues have been political.  So far, most of this has amounted to either making appeals directly to the government for redress of grievances, or making appeals to the people to put pressure on the government to reform itself.  Both of these are indeed political, and address only the symptoms, not the root cause -- the Authoritarian Model of Government itself, which inherently violates the sovereignty of the individual.

Appealing to the people assert their sovereignty as individuals, and abandon the AMOG by just saying NO to it's demands, is not at all political.

[kola]

It is my opinion they remain silent to say below the radar.

They are succeeding yes, but are they being somewhat selfish? maybe.

to each his own.

The way the corrupt IRS system is designed, it is self incriminating for a nonpaying tax person to announce his position and share is his success stories of victory. It sucks, I know...but the IRS Mobster loves to set examples.

Until a HUGE majority of tax protestors band together and commit to civil dis' it will be quite rare for a single (or a few) person/people to announce how they avoided income taxes.

Kola

Kola

[coffeeseven]

It is my opinion they remain silent to say below the radar.

Some of the silent are so poor we can't afford to get the plane high enough for the radar to see us. 

[Raineyrocks]

It is my opinion they remain silent to say below the radar.

Some of the silent are so poor we can't afford to get the plane high enough for the radar to see us. 

[Caleb]

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.

[John Edward Mercier]

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

[srqrebel]

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.

Again, we are so 100% in agreement, it's shocking ...quite a deviation from some of our past discussions in person

Hey, thanks for pointing this out -- not only are the two compatible, but I consider it absolutely vital to combine the two for maximum effectiveness.  My point previously was that Carl Watner advocated standing silent, but made no mention of appealing to the public (that I recall).  When Lauren was arrested, she stood silent, and although she did make an effort to explain her actions afterward when inquired by non-gov entities, it seemed as if her explanations did not get much coverage.  That has to change.

By the way, I really miss those discussions... don't know about you, but I found them quite inspiring!