Oh, I see.
Any time some tax evader gets held to account, it’s a matter of keeping the government “off the backs of the people.”
Wow. Who knew that merely invoking “the Constitution” is a free pass to endless criminal activity without consequence?
Obviously you won’t mind at all if I evade a million or two in taxes, right?
All against laws duly passed by a Constitutionally designated legislature, signed by a Constitutionally designated executive and upheld by Constitutionally designated courts.
What could be simpler? Get that darned Constitutional government off my back, I’ve got cheating and evading to do!
Bravo! You make really great nonsense arguments. They certainly suit my purposes as a potential tax cheater and evader. With myriad other possibilities.
It’s good to know that you’re an anarchist in favor of all manner of cheating and illegality. Who needs those silly Constitutionally enacted laws? They’re just so many words on paper. I’m “people.” Get that stuff “off my back.”
It must be great good fun to be an anarchist like you. Where do I sign up for your insipid philosophy? Do I have to subscribe to some theory that people and dinosaurs both existed 6,000 years ago? Or, can I go for something a little less goofy?
Meanwhile, I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to post an actual defense of tax evasion done in the name of religion or anything else. Why? Because no such defense exists.
### Anti-scumbag: Oh, I see. Any time some tax evader gets held to account, it’s a matter of keeping the government “off the backs of the people.”###
Are there any regulations webbed within the 74,000 pages of tax code you disagree with? If so, what are you going to do about it? Vote republican?
### Anti-scumbag: Wow. Who knew that merely invoking “the Constitution” is a free pass to endless criminal activity without consequence? ###
Was the adoption of the 16th amendment by the will of the people, or by the criminal shenanigans of tyrannical psychopaths? The politically savvy “anti-scumbags” of the world understand the system. What we need is someway to protect the less political savvy from the countless rules and regulations implemented by the politically savvy: implemented for no other reason than to control the people, while freeing the government from the chains of the constitution. The original purpose of the constitution was to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.
### Anti-scumbag: Obviously you won’t mind at all if I evade a million or two in taxes, right?###
Why should I? It wouldn’t hurt me.
### Anti-scumbag: All against laws duly passed by a Constitutionally designated legislature, signed by a Constitutionally designated executive and upheld by Constitutionally designated courts. ###
A Constitutionally-designated legislature is bound by the chains of the Constitution, as are Constitutionally-designated executive and judicial branches. Usurpation is tyranny.
### Anti-scumbag: What could be simpler? Get that darned Constitutional government off my back, I’ve got cheating and evading to do! ###
Constitutional government? That dream went out the window with Marbury vs. Madison.
### Anti-scumbag: Bravo! You make really great nonsense arguments. They certainly suit my purposes as a potential tax cheater and evader. With myriad other possibilities. ###
You, like most Freepers, are too politically savvy to cheat on your taxes.
### Anti-scumbag: It’s good to know that you’re an anarchist in favor of all manner of cheating and illegality. Who needs those silly Constitutionally enacted laws? They’re just so many words on paper. I’m “people.” Get that stuff “off my back.” ###
Reader take note: to the modern government apologist there is no difference between anarchy and the support of the limited government found in the constitution. Government apologists believe the government can “constitutionally” do anything it pleases.
### Anti-scumbag: It must be great good fun to be an anarchist like you. Where do I sign up for your insipid philosophy? Do I have to subscribe to some theory that people and dinosaurs both existed 6,000 years ago? Or, can I go for something a little less goofy? ###
Is this now a theological discussion? I thought this was a political issue. But now that you mentioned it, do you despise Hovind because of his theology? The leftists certainly do.
### Anti-scumbag: Meanwhile, I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to post an actual defense of tax evasion done in the name of religion or anything else. Why? Because no such defense exists. ###
I am not politically connected, so I pay my taxes, early and often. But I do have profound respect for the Founding Fathers (the scumbags of their day in the eyes of the Loyalists) who rebelled against the most powerful government on earth and their lawfully-implemented taxes.