[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

> > [Case]
> > I think you confuse cowardice with insanity. Insanity is doing the
> > same thing over and over and expecting a different result. After
> > Korea, Vietnam and the Russian experience in Afghanistan you would
> > think we would learn.
> 
> [Platt]
> Learn what? To cut and run?
> 
> [Case]
> Obviously we have learned very little from our past experience. This
> might lead one to question the sanity of our leaders. But if experience
> is any guide what we do is declare victory and leave. You can call it
> cutting and running if you like but it doesn't sound as butch.

[Platt]
Declare victory and let Al Quada rule Iraq? You must have a death wish.

> > [Case]
> > No it is a pact between the government and it's citizens and it
> > guarantees all who come under its domain the protection of due
> > process.
> 
> [Platt]
> No. You wrote the key word -- "citizens." Not "all."
> 
> [Case]
> You are correct but I also was careful to say "all who come under its
> domain." One does not have to be a citizen to enjoy the benefits of its
> legal protections. In this country as a general rule we have regarded
> our legal principles as moral principles and apply the due process of
> law to all who come under its domain.

[Platt]
Prisoners of war are not given the capturing country's legal 
protections. Even the international Geneva Convention doesn't apply to 
terrorists who dress as civilians and hide behind women's skirts. 
 
> >[Case]
> > What is suicidal is compromising that sacred pact for any reason. If
> > we can do it to That Man we can do it to Any Man. If terrorists are
> > guilty of something then let's charge and punish them. The law
> > provides for that.
> 
> [Platt]
> If terrorists are guilty of something? A wonderful oxymoron.
> 
> [Case]
> You are correct again. For the sake of brevity I fell into the
> propaganda trap of the Bush administration. For the sake of convenience
> I was willing to charge, try and sentence That Man with a single word. I
> admit that that was a heinous thing to do. But my point was; we have no
> way of knowing what these men are or are not since they have not been
> charged. I don't believe they are even classified as prisoners of war.
> What "we the people" are doing in these cases is a gross violation of
> our own legal and moral principles. It has not gone unnoticed in the
> international community either. Check this out:
> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

[Platt]
Terrorists forfeit any and all "rights."

> [Platt]
> I do vote for people who share my views. But, you failed to address the
> question. If taxes aren't collected by the threat of force, why not make
> them voluntary?
> 
> [Case]
> I thought I made this point clear but I can expand on it if it will
> help. Taxes are assessed and collected on things that we own and money
> that we earn. I am unaware of any tax that can be levied against a
> citizen who does not own anything or who does not earn an income.

[Platt]
Ever hear of sales tax? And fees?

> Furthermore there is no law that I am aware of that requires a citizen
> to own anything or to earn an income.

[Platt]
There are laws against vagrancy.

> Taxes are matters of law. The
> threat of force is used to enforce the law. So if a citizen elects to
> participate in the capitalist system and seeks the government's power to
> protect her private property rights, she must follow the laws that
> apply. 

[Platt]
"Threat of force." You got it!

>> The tax laws like any law can be modified so long as they are in keeping
> with the general principles set forth in the constitution. Even the
> constitution can be amended through our system. If you think taxes
> should be voluntary then run for congress. Run for a local government
> office. Just vote. You have this right to participate in the legislative
> process whether you own property and pay taxes or not.

[Platt]
The worst ruling ever by the Supreme Court was to sanction the income
tax. I'm with Arlo on endorsing the Fair Tax proposal.

> I think I have addressed this issue. I have said that there is no law
> requiring a citizen to participate in the economic system. Absent
> participation there is nothing to tax. But if you do chose as a free man
> to participate, you will fall under the laws agreed upon by free men. If
> you fail to follow the laws governing your participation, you can justly
> expect the force of law to apply to you.

[Platt]
There's that word again, "force." Let's be sure to keep that in mind 
when talking about any government involvement in our lives.

> [Platt]
> The government that protects and preserves intellectual freedom has
> every right to protect itself from those bent on destroying it. 
> 
> [Case]
> Exactly so! And the same force of law that applies to suspected tax
> dodgers applies to suspected terrorists. We have a system in place for
> determining if evidence is sufficient to warrant a charge. We have a
> procedure in place for conducting a trial to weigh the evidence. We have
> a method of determining guilt or innocence. We have institution set up
> to mete out justice to those found guilty.
> 
> It is generally referred to as "due process" and it applies to alleged
> tax dodgers and terrorists equally.

[Platt]
Due process for terrorists? Never.  Kill them. Our pussy footing around 
with terrorists in Iraq is why we haven't won. In war, its kill or be 
killed. Due process doesn't apply. 

> [Platt]
> "Rightfully does not" strip away property rights? What's to stop it?
> 
> [Case]
> The will of the people.

[Platt]
You mean a majority can vote to strip away property rights of a 
minority?

> > [Case]
> > Capitalism is just the system our government currently uses to
> > redistribute wealth.
> 
> [Platt]
> You can't redistribute what hasn't been created.  Capitalism is a great
> creative system. What gets "redistributed" under capitalism is done
> voluntarily between traders. When government gets involved in
> redistribution, out come the guns. 
> 
> [Case]
> Capitalism is not the only system of economics under which goods and
> services are produced.

[Platt]
Yes, there's always slavery or totalitarianism where you to told what  
to produce, or else.. 

> It could be argued that a system that does not
> provide for the production of goods and services is not an economic
> system at all. I thought all of the arguments expressed here were over
> the morality of economic systems or the efficiency of economic systems.
> We use a capitalist or mixed economic system in this country for reasons
> of morality and efficiency as determined by law.

[Platt]
Not determined by law. Determined by the intellectual morality of 
individual freedom, protected and preserved by law in the U.S.  

> But the distribution of goods and services is a fundamental property of
> any economic system and free men have at their disposal the means to
> change law to favor whatever economic system suites them. The guns come
> out when citizens violated the law. If too many guns are needed to
> enforce a law perhaps it is time to reconsider the wisdom of the law.

[Platt]
Again, glad to see you emphasize that government is essentially 
legalized force at the  point of a gun. And you wonder why I am 
suspicious of government? 
 
> [Platt}
> I would prefer not giving government officials permission to 
> "redistribute" my property to benefit another private party for the sake
> of increasing the tax base. That's obscene.  
> 
> [Case]
> Oddly enough the power of eminent domain is granted to the federal
> government by an amendment to the constitution. It is part of the Bill
> of Rights. But then, it is included in the Fifth Amendment for which you
> have already expressed such distain. But if you don't like it, we can
> change it but only if we go through the lawful steps.

[Platt]
Eminent domain was never intended to enrich private developers. And
you wonder why I'm suspicious of government?

Platt