Discourse #8
Taxes are Illegal
(part 4)

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.990127161511.21877E-100000@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>,
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2@columbia.edu> wrote:

Dan:
> If companies set precautions, then how do individuals expect to get the
> right to sue?

Dave: If an individual's person or property is harmed, that individual has the right to sue the company.

Dan:
> ...how would you distinguish between the
> restraining effects of "laws" on individual autonomy and the restraining
> effects of other power-centers, such as corporations, on individual
> autonomy...

Dave: In a rational society, there would be no basic distinctions. Both individuals and corporations must be free to act. Valid law, which is objective law, should be passive. If individuals or groups do not cross the line--i.e., do not initiate force or fraud--then the law leaves them alone. Only when an individual or organization initiates physical force--or its corollaries of coercion and fraud--does the law act to protect and/or compensate the victim.

Dan:
> ...I disagree with your understanding of volition --
> structures, such as legal structures, simultaneously constrain and enable
> agency (i.e. volition)...

Dave: Yes. But to expand this, one has to look at the nature of man before deriving laws. Man, who survives through the rational use of his volitional mind, requires legal constraints to be limited to the prohibition of initiatory force, fraud, and coercion. In all other realms--including business, money, and sex--man must be completely free to act.

Dan:
> ...if preventive sanctions are flawed because they violate some
> ontological claim about human beings, then principles such as the sanctity
> of private property and prohibitions on the initiation of force are also
> morally unacceptable...

Dave: Now that is a genuine non sequitur.

Preventative law attempts to prevent legal violations before they happen, instead of dealing with them when or *if* they happen. Even though there is no specific evidence that a person will violate a law, preventative law requires the person to justify his actions--as in the case of submitting to a regulatory bureaucracy.

But a basic tenent of logic is that one cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that one will *not* violate a law. Thus, arbitrary governmental decisions based on feelings determine who is trustworthy of acting and who is not.

Preventative law violates (1) man's requirements as a volitional being and (2) a crucial principle of logic. As such, preventative law is invalid--based on the facts of reality and the nature of man.

But it does not follow that private property and the prohibition of initiatory force are morally unacceptable. The facts reveal the opposite: Man uses his mind to earn property through productive work. He has to keep his private property to survive and flourish. And his private property can only be deprived of him through initiatory force, compulsion, or fraud. Therefore, private property is vital to man; so is the prohibition of initiatory force.

Dan:
> ...your use of "rationally" here strikes me as nothing more than a
> contentless way of saying "what I believe to be true."...

Dave: There is a distinction between rational thought and opinion. Personal views--e.g., the way one wants things to be or criticisms of existing things-- typically are opinions. But observed facts that are logically induced into thoughts and principles are not opinions. They are rationally derived items of knowledge. For instance, some of the remarks at http://localgroup.8m.com are opinions. By contrast, the online books available at http://localgroup.8m.com are items of knowlege.

Dan:
> [in response to the reason for government] Why?...

Dave: The only justifiable reason for government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect each citizen's person and property. The bottom line here is this: the only legitimate role of government is to retaliate against those who initiate the use of force, fraud, and coercion. But a proper government must never inititiate force, fraud, or coercion against its citizens.

Dan:
> ...And you criticize "Platonic epistemology?"

Dave: Yes. See http://localgroup.8m.com or search Usenet for detailed Local Group views on Plato's philosophy in general and his epistemology in particular.

Dan:
> Governments are businesses with monopolies.

Dave: This is a patently absurd. Business offers a positive: a product or service. Government offers a negative: the use of force. The two are diametric opposites.

Dan:
> Bahahahahahahahahaha. You seriously suggest o-ist epistemology is more
> coherent than Humean or Kantian...?

Dave: Yes. Furthermore, The Local Group surpasses Objectivist epistemology as it reveals man's new survival dynamic for the third millennium and beyond. That dynamic is the perfect mind, which functions through reality-based principled thinking. For more details, see the Perfect Mind/Perfect Body book at http://localgroup.8m.com/perfectmindperfectbody/front/titlepage.htm or email The Local Group at localgroup@usa.net today.

_________________________________________________________________

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.990130025324.3288B- 100000@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>,
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2@columbia.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 davidhunter@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> > Let's try an experiment. We'll eliminate business for one decade. All we'll
> > have is government. Then there will not be "naked" greed, profits, etc. Wait:
> > David L. Hunter's philosophical antipode already conducted such an experiment.
> > His name is Adolf Hitler. And his experiment was the conversion of the Weimar
> > Republic into the Third Reich. Is this the kind of penis-collapsing world you
> > long for? Viktor Frankl lived in Hitler's anti-business world. And he'll tell
> > you it's no fun.

> Uh, no. Try reading some books about the corporate policies of the Third
> Reich some time; ones written by historians, that is.

> Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2

Did The Local Group unjustly criticize the corporate policies of Hitler's Third Reich? Perhaps the Hitler-led/Himler-inspired Empire of Racism and Mass-Murder was more "civilized" than implied in the above post. Perhaps The Local Group did not "fairly" acknowledge the business practices of the War-Making, Jew-Gassing, Kant/Hegel-based Nazi regime.

Are you defending the corporate policies of the Third Reich? Do you think they advance human life? Would you like to see them implemented in America? Are these the kind of ideas with which you shape young minds?

_________________________________________________________________

The Local Group Traps A Criminal Mind

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.990130025653.3288C- 100000@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>,
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2@columbia.edu> wrote:

> Private property -- a necessary legal structure for a market
> economy -- restricts man's autonomy...

> ...almost all [natural law
> theorists] admitted that man's "right" to
> sustain himself could not possibly justify absolute protection of "private
> property."

> Human beings cultivate and produce various things.
> The consumption of some of those things is necessary for their survival.
> But...if you derive your claim
> from the need to survive, it follows *more* closely that man has a right
> to what he needs, but others have a right to *take* surplus "property" if
> they need it to survive.

Mr. Nexon exemplifies the criminal mind. In the 19th century, Feodor Dostoyevsky--in his masterpiece "Crime and Punishment"--revealed the nature of the criminal mind. And in the 20th century, Stanton E. Samenow--in his masterwork "Inside the Criminal Mind"--revealed that the criminal mind is a self-made entity that *chooses* criminal thinking and actions.

The tripartite insignia of the criminal mind constitutes:
1. The refusal to recognize, or the overt attack on, private property rights.
2. Placing the burden of producing genuine values on other people such as entrepreneurs and businesspeople.
3. Intellectually or physically attacking those producers while believing usurpers, deceivers, and destroyers have a right to take values created by those producers.

_________________________________________________________________

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.990201020644.7601A- 100000@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>,
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2@columbia.edu> wrote:

> ...Certainly the idea that individuals or
> corporations cannot limit the freedom of others except through killing
> them or obvious theft (i.e. walking over and taking) and that laws should
> not somehow "prevent" that activity but simply "punish" it ex post facto
> seems to me naive and confused...

In a proper society, the only moral and legal prohibitions comprise the prohibition of initiatory force, fraud, and coercion. And the only legal justification for the use of force is in self-defense against those who initiate force (and its corollaries of fraud, compulsion, etc.).

But in a proper society, incentive to harm, loot, and kill fall toward zero. Why? Three reasons:

* Super-efficient local police forces will prevent many crimes
* Reputation Matrices will make survival difficult for destructive people
* Ostracism Networks will keep overt and hidden criminals out of society

_________________________________________________________________

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.990201180822.26322B-100000@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>,
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2@columbia.edu> wrote:

> ...you unjustly criticized Hitler of being anti-business...

If Hitler was alive today, The Local Group would mortally entangle him in a computerized ostracism network.

_________________________________________________________________

In article <aabel-3101991053220001@p7 -term5-indy.netdirect.net>,
aabel@netdirect.net (Arend Abel) wrote:

> ...I believe that the basic
> principles are these, in hierarchical fashion:

> Live.
> Don't harm others.
> Don't lie.

> Each requires a great deal of elaboration. For example, I believe that a
> person's right to live is really the right to *choose* whether to live or
> not. Thus, the rational suicide (assuming there is such a thing), does not
> amount to a counterexample disproving the existence of the first
> principle...

> ...It is flat out silly to talk about
> an "opinion" that "the sun doesn't exist," just as it is silly to talk
> about the "fact" that "taxes are illegal."

> Arend

Here is a basically open, honest mind striving for understanding. Arend can go either way: toward the dishonesty/death route of criminal thinking and action. Or Arend can go toward the honesty/life route of business thinking and action. That choice is made by each person at some point in his or her life.

The Local Group fully supports the suicide option, but only as a last resort whereby a person:

1. Has no chance at freedom, such as being trapped in a dictatorship.
2. Has a terminal illness, such as malignant cancer.
3. Has committed murdered; justice requires that one lose one's own life.

Other than the above scenarios, suicide would be an irrational choice for an individual's one-and-only life.

Taxes are illegal because they ultimately require the initiation of force or threat of force by some men against other men. The essential role of government and law is to protect innocent citizens from the initiation of physical force (and its corollaries of compulsion and fraud). Anyone--including any government--that initiates force or compulsion against individuals is committing an objective crime. To see over 500 documented cases where the IRS abused, coerced, looted, and killed innocent Americans, see http://www.neo- tech.com/irs-class-action/1.html#list.

_________________________________________________________________

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.990201181327.26322D-100000@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>,
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2@columbia.edu> wrote:

> ...I know Stanton Samenow...

Now it's time to meet the Cosmic Mind at http://www.neo- tech.com/protection2/p325-335.html

_________________________________________________________________

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.990201181024.26322C-100000@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>,
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2@columbia.edu> wrote:

> ...perhaps you could provide a
> coherent response to my claim that rooting property in natural survival
> needs does not ground absolute titular property rights of the kind you
> support...

No need to reinvent the wheel.

The greatest philosopher alive provided mankind with earth's first valid, principled defense of individual rights in general and private property rights in particular. He is one of only two philosophers in history to use undivided honesty in formulating a philosophical system. He holds a PhD in philosophy and has taught philosophy at Long Island University, New York University, and Hunter College. He is also the author of numerous books and audiocourses. And he worked side-by-side with Ayn Rand for thirty years and is now heir to her estate. Today, he is the host of the popular daily talk show at http://www.pwni.com.

His name is Dr. Leonard Peikoff. And his unmovable defense of individual rights and private property rights is contained in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", Meridian, 1993, Chapter 10, pages 351-363.

Before you can grasp the crucial need for private property rights, you need to grasp the sanctity of the individual. Before you can grasp the sanctity of the individual, you need to recapture your lost innocence--the pristine innocence known by all children under seven and known by no adult living in earth's anticivilization.

Young Wade points the way for recapturing lost innocence:

Wade was a boy of three
He knew he was on top of the world
No one else knew this
Wade kept this secret to himself.

He looked at adults and wondered
Why do they appear as they do?
Don't they know that they too can be on top of the world?

As a boy of five Wade was different than others
He lived in a much different world than adults
His world was amazing, beautiful, rich
Everything he desired was available to him
But Wade did not understand why adults
Were not also filled with joy
Is there something adults know that Wade doesn't?

Wade grew to a boy of ten
Wonder, joy, and excitement
There was no end
Why don't adults participate in this?
Are they acting out an unspoken fate?

As a boy of twelve Wade became aware
That wonder and excitement has a cost
He also learned that in kids his age all was lost
What has happened, who is to blame?
How could everyone lose their youth, fortune, and fame?

Wade looked around and learned
That the way to adulthood was to surrender
By the time he was a teenager
Wade was like everyone else
How simple life became, he knew just what to do
Simply follow others, they'll tell you.

So all was set from now to death
Wade would remain alive until his last breath
He grew into his twenties like everyone else
Joy and happiness slipping away.

Wade was becoming an adult
He was no longer on top of the world
Now he was like everyone else.

Thinking about death five decades from now
He is aware that his years flew by, but how?
Then he thought about those childhood days
Of wonder and awe, of pleasure and fun
It's over now, but did it really have to end?
Is a life void of passion his destiny too?

He looked high, he looked low
He looked left, he looked right
He looked forward, he looked backward
And as far as he could see
A life void of passion was Wade's destiny.

Wade no longer wanted to be an adult
If it meant the end of passion, wonder, joy, and happiness
But what could he do, where could he go?
The world of adults was all he had come to know...

Continued at http://localgroup.8m.com/mindofawinner/front/prelude.htm

_________________________________________________________________