I just disagree with the premise that taxes are inherently illegal. I know they are. That, however, doesn't mean I agree with the tax system as it exists or the size of government.
Just mean I am clearly intune with the risks I may be exposed to and accept such knowingly, with the full knowledge that if I were to violate statute, there is no recourse available in the court.
That my friend is called responsible Civil Disobediance. I live under no illusions, nor do I allow friends to walk blindly into the brick wall of the judicial system with blinders on as Schulz & Co. do in recruiting their cannon fodder and guinea pigs.
I think taxes are the only form of payment for continuing government operations. I don't think taxes are inherently wrong or illegal in any sense, particularly within our republic.
Bob Schulz brings to the table of discussion some refreshing ideas that are far from radical. He brings supportive evidence about how the government has created methods of taxation beyond our individual capabilities within the republic to control and sustain. That these methods are outside of the Constitution control is important; I believe that the 16th amendment was improperly certified.
But despite our individual differences about this, I want to point out to you that there is a large difference between our respective opinions concerning methods of challenging the government.
You wait until the last minute to challenge authority; I rip it's throat out, as soon as I see can. I don't believe in government, any government; I believe in individual values and capabilities that created the greatest nation upon this Earth.