Which anti-tax strategy is best?

[Lex]

Ed Brown has taken the "no law" position with his trial and the public at large. There are varying opinions about this on this forum and many others that it's better to take the moral ground instead of a legal one when it comes taxes.

I would like to get a vote for how many people think that the movement will have the most success with the "there is no law" position and how many think that this should be only about the moral aspect.

Do you think people are more open to the message of "there is no law" or to the moral ground?

[SAK]

I think he's chosen the right argument for himself.  The reason being: if he simply took the moral ground on the issue and said "doesn't matter if there's a law or not -- it's wrong," the general public would never side with him.  The general public does not like law-breakers, even if the law itself is bad.  The general public still thinks we can work within the system to fix things.

So, I like his approach -- showing there indeed is no law.

[FrankChodorov]

this poll is not specific enough with regards to choices...

there should be an option for:

"the law is legal and immoral"

I don't believe he is arguing there is no law but rather that the laws on the books don't pertain to him.

[Rocketman]

this poll is not specific enough with regards to choices...

there should be an option for:

"the law is legal and immoral"

I don't believe he is arguing there is no law but rather that the laws on the books don't pertain to him.

I was about to respond to this, but then remembered Frank hasn't responded to my PM asking his opinion onmarijuana decrim... never mind.

Shall I assume Henry George didn't take a position on marijuana policy?

[KBCraig]

I think he's chosen the right argument for himself.  The reason being: if he simply took the moral ground on the issue and said "doesn't matter if there's a law or not -- it's wrong," the general public would never side with him.

I think you're correct. The vast majority believe that everyone is (and should be) required to "pay their fair share". They dismiss arguments like "taxes fund torture!", but might be persuaded that no such law exists.

Ed and Elaine may have been determined to not pay federal income taxes no matter what. But their legal argument has consistently been: "Show us the law, and we will pay."

Kevin

[error]

Yep, everyone should be required to pay their fair share of funding the Iraq war, Guantanamo, torture of innocent people, and so forth. Those who don't should be shot.

[FrankChodorov]

this poll is not specific enough with regards to choices...

there should be an option for:

"the law is legal and immoral"

I don't believe he is arguing there is no law but rather that the laws on the books don't pertain to him.

I was about to respond to this, but then remembered Frank hasn't responded to my PM asking his opinion onmarijuana decrim... never mind.

Shall I assume Henry George didn't take a position on marijuana policy?

sorry about that...the laws against marijuana use are legal and immoral.

I was elected to an advisory neighborhood board in Boston in '88 running on a secession and decriminalizatio platform.

[Caleb]

The problem with the "show me the law and I'll pay" guys is this:  What happens if they do show the law?  Or else, what happens if they create a law if they find that there isn't one? 

It seems better to be honest.  I don't pay because I am at a place in my life where I don't want to pay for torture, war, covert operations, training foreign dictators, etc etc etc.  I don't care if there is a law or not.  No law can force me to take a position that I find morally repugnant.  And I frankly don't care what the other people in my community think either.

[FrankChodorov]

The problem with the "show me the law and I'll pay" guys is this:  What happens if they do show the law?  Or else, what happens if they create a law if they find that there isn't one? 

It seems better to be honest.  I don't pay because I am at a place in my life where I don't want to pay for torture, war, covert operations, training foreign dictators, etc etc etc.  I don't care if there is a law or not.  No law can force me to take a position that I find morally repugnant.  And I frankly don't care what the other people in my community think either.

are you willing to go (non-violently) to jail for your beliefs in the hopes that your capturers will be morally repulsed by their action and with enough taking this path ultimately set you free and change the laws??

[maineiac]

The problem with the "show me the law and I'll pay" guys is this:  What happens if they do show the law?  Or else, what happens if they create a law if they find that there isn't one? 

It seems better to be honest.  I don't pay because I am at a place in my life where I don't want to pay for torture, war, covert operations, training foreign dictators, etc etc etc.  I don't care if there is a law or not.  No law can force me to take a position that I find morally repugnant.  And I frankly don't care what the other people in my community think either.

are you willing to go (non-violently) to jail for your beliefs in the hopes that your capturers will be morally repulsed by their action and with enough taking this path ultimately set you free and change the laws??

I'm guessing he's living in the present, enjoying each day and hour with a clean conscience, not living in fear of some convoluted, what-if? hypothetical permutation.

[ninetales1234]

So, who was the one person (at least now) who clicked option one? I voted option two; it will stand the test of time. The law may be changed someday, but it will always be wrong to take money that isn't yours.

The problem with the "show me the law and I'll pay" guys is this:  What happens if they do show the law?  Or else, what happens if they create a law if they find that there isn't one? 

It seems better to be honest.  I don't pay because I am at a place in my life where I don't want to pay for torture, war, covert operations, training foreign dictators, etc etc etc.  I don't care if there is a law or not.  No law can force me to take a position that I find morally repugnant.  And I frankly don't care what the other people in my community think either.

QFT

[erisian]

Regardless of whether or not there is a law that says you have to pay, there is a law that makes it illegal to pay, for the same reason that it is immoral to pay;
Your Tax Dollars Fund Torture, Terrorism, and War Crimes..
See: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=6890.msg120151#msg120151

[practicepro]

I think of it this way:

A slave is acting morally when he attempts to escape.
However the slave is not under a moral obligation to attempt
escape especially when the consequence is severe.  He may
instead attempt to persuade his master to free him, or wait
for an appropriate moment when his escape can be made good.

[error]

I've lately been reading the stories of slaves of the past here who traveled the Underground Railroad. They're inspiring, heartbreaking, hair-raising, and instructive. People left behind their families and risked death for the mere chance at gaining freedom. The stories are also humbling. I leave them thinking I'm not doing enough.

[Russell Kanning]

However the slave is not under a moral obligation to attempt
escape especially when the consequence is severe.  He may
instead attempt to persuade his master to free him, or wait
for an appropriate moment when his escape can be made good.

I mostly agree.
What should he do when he is told to whip other slaves?

Is it right to fund torture while a slave?