Saturday, October 3, 2009

Why am I wrong to take the position I take?

In attempting to find some Webster's reference (which I think there is) to commenter Chiu Chunling's assertion which I quoted in the previous post, I found this comment (which I included as a comment) to one of my posts,

Terry Morris said...
It occurs to me that some folks who read this post might think I'm being a bit radical in stating that I refuse to participate further in the schemes of the federal government. A couple of points to make on that:

1) As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." And as one of my favorite H.S. teachers put it to me in 1984, "you better be radical about something." [TM: I actually saw this teacher at a football game last Friday night, though I didn't introduce my 25-year-older self as a matter of ultimate respect).

2) If I choose to limit my personal participation in the federal government's schemes to rob me and others of the wealth we create to fund policies and projects that we do not agree with and would not otherwise support, by legal means, what is radical about that?

Let's put it this way, I can choose to work x number of hours or y number of hours. If x is the number of hours I need to work to keep my family up with minimal participation on my part in the government's program, and y is the number of hours I need to work to to support my family and make a maximum personal contribution to the government's program, I'm simply choosing option x as opposed to option y. This means I'm opting out, to the greatest extent possible, of the federal government's tax-and-spend policies.

You think I'm wrong to do so? I challenge you to support that assertion.

This challenge still stands.


Anonymous said...

I'd be hard put to contest your challenge, given that my own position is that, the government of the United States having failed to adhere to the limits to which those who actually establish and support it have set as conditions for its authority, and as the government has failed to protect my individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; I utterly reject the authority of said government.

I pay no taxes and obey no summons, I do as I will and if the state dare send its minions to assault me, I will treat them as I would any who did so without any warrant of authority, for I consider them to have none.

Of course, the degree of defiance anyone may plausibly undertake is dependent on individual circumstances. Judge wrong, and the state will only crush you as a common criminal. Prudence demands you set the degree of your defiance by its effectiveness, not estimate its virtue by its degree.

But my feeling is that, the current usurpers of your government having rejected utterly the original intentions of its framing, you well ought to do your part to deprive them of power over you.

Anonymous said...

By the way, if you need a hobby to fill your extra free time...this might be interesting. Note that because this is merely the 'upper receiver' and theoretically requires an AR-15 lower receiver, purchase does not require a license. The price is...very reasonable at a thousand less than a PS90. You might notice that a parts kit for the AR-15 lower (not the lower itself, heh) is a popular companion buy. 5.7 ammo is fairly reasonably priced...compared to other assault rifle rounds, at any rate.

If you're not really a...hobbyist, you can always buy a complete AR-15 lower receiver for less than $500, subject to all relevant firearms laws. But that doesn't seem as fun to me.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the url tag just produces an imitation of a link. Whatever, search for "AR-57 Upper".

Rick Darby said...


You seem to be assuming that at a certain point on the income scale, all the marginal increase will go to the government. But you are surely not in a 100-percent marginal tax bracket, because there is no such bracket. Therefore, if you continue to make additional income past x, you will be helping the government, but also adding to your family's income.

Of course you have the moral right to limit your income to less than it might otherwise be on behalf of a principle — assuming your family is on board with that.

The alternative, though, would be to maximize your income, even if it helps support illegitimate government programs, because that would give you more security and more "ammunition" (in the form of dollars) in your opposition to overreaching government.

Terry Morris said...

Rick, first of all I'm happy to see you here because, of course, I value your opinion on this and other subjects. Second, no, I'm not exactly doing what you're assuming I'm doing. Appealing to my fifth amendment priveleges I'm not going to specify precisely how I'm going about following my strategy, although the government has indicated that it has some sort of incling what I'm doing. But then again, if I were to follow the law in all its particulars at this point, it'd definitely owe me money, not the reverse (notice how I refuse to take their (re: your) money though it would work to my immediate advantage?). So, the question is, is the government better served to just leave me alone and receive my minimal contribution as such, or is it better served to put me in prison as some kind of 'tax-evader' at a net loss? Hmmm. We must, of course, take into consideration that the government takes any kind of rational position on this issue in the first place....

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...well, I'm guessing you're not turning out homemade *cookies* and selling them on the black market. They don't call that 'tax evasion' as far as I'm aware...though if I were you, and doing that, suggesting that my primary crime was something other than illegal *cookie* manufacture might be a prudent move.

I'm not prudent enough to do that myself, though. If I do get back into homemade *cookies*, I'm totally going to open-source the plans on the internet somewhere. Unless my *cookies* end up looking crappy...but what are the chances of that?

The thing is...I love making *cookies* much more than I can use them. Does anyone else ever have that kind of difficulty? I don't hate *cookies* or anything, I just like making them more than most people probably do.

Terry Morris said...

Well, see, the way I have it figured I can't possibly get out of paying net taxes unless I either die or choose to violate the dictates of conscience, the latter of which is very unlikely to ever happen. I can, however, determine whether or not to turn down the spicket so to speak. The various spheres of government are going to get my taxes irregardless. That is, so long as I remain an able-bodied producer of wealth. I mean, I can't possibly produce everything my family and I need to survive on my own, though I can and will continue to produce the income necessary to purchase those necessities.

But, no, I'm not producing "cookies" of any variety or flavor and selling them on the black market. But even if I were I probably wouldn't admit it.

Elizabeth Sperry said...

It might otherwise be on behalf of a principle — assuming your family is on board with that.
Bail Bonds Raleigh