Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:35:46 -0800 From: FWO Subject: Responding to Information There are many ways to respond to the information you receive. One way is to instantly and automatically reject it. Another is to instantly and automatically accept and believe it. Another is to evaluate it: "Might there be something useful for me here?" Another is to see if it fits with your current knowledge. If there's just one thing "wrong" with any of it, then reject all of it. Some of us have "compartments" or "boxes" into which we classify information. Libertarians might have a "box" called "patriot nonsense." Anything that seems to fit this category is automatically "filed" under "patriot nonsense" without further inspection and evaluation. Similarly, patriots may a "box" called "libertarian nonsense." Some people have boxes called "religious nonsense," "atheist nonsense," "legal nonsense," "anarchy nonsense," etc. Some people use evaluation of the messenger as a criterion. If it comes from so-and-so it must be garbage. But if my hero says so, it must be true. (A scientologist once said to me, "What you say can't possibly be true; because, if it were true, Hubbard would have said it, and he didn't!") When people respond verbally or in writing to information they receive, their response may be to some extent a response to the information and to some extent a response to whatever goes on in their own minds. Consider a scale from 0% to 100%. Sometimes, when someone ostensibly responds to information received, the response is 0% about the information and 100% about himself or herself. Usually, a response is somewhere between the extremes. In any case, a response from a person can often tell you a great deal about that person. Jung's theory of the "shadow" is relevant here. According to Jung, your "shadow" is part of your personality that you don't like and disown. You often disown such "bad" parts of your character to the extent that you become largely or completely unaware of them. There is a tendency for people to project their "shadow" onto others -- a tendency to accuse others of their own worst characteristics. Recently I posted out a report on "How to Stop Withholding." A person -- who turns out to be an attorney -- almost certainly a state bar licensed attorney (a bulwark of "the system?") -- responded to the report as follows: Attorney: The above is a perfect example of the sort of *&^%$ that is being routinely pushed by confidence men appealing to the ignorance of "Patriots" and libertarians. The author, despite the vague reference above to accepting "whatever risk came with that decision" [risks that are conviently not specified], fails to mention that his employer or anyone in a decisionmaking position in the company is subject to a "100% penalty" if the company does not withhold, and the taxpayer is liable for all sorts of things, beginning with perjury, for filing a false certificate. It is one thing to honestly advocate tax resistence. It is another thing entirely to propagate the false view that one can "legally" and risklessly not pay taxes, drive without a license, etc. through waiving ones hands in the air and murmering the correct incantation or filing some secret document [secret formulas which are known only by those who send in several thousand dollars to the great guru]. Those propagating the latter sort of view should be referred to by their correct names - defrauders, deceivers and those out to subject our naive political breathern to various unnamed liabilities. They are slightly below scum on the evolutionary scale and may well be agents of Our Lord That Arte In Washington sent forth to neutralize the opposition. "Lynda" responded to the attorney: Whether what "J. Otis" wrote is true or not is beside the point that there ARE, in fact, legal ways to avoid taxes. It is also true, however, that there are a lot of "patriots for profit", agents provocateur, or various types of hucksters running around selling the proverbial silver bullet. However, the "view" that one can legally not pay taxes IS NOT FALSE. The element of risk is another matter. "Naive political bretheren" is a nice phrase. Be that as it may, such people are bound to be fleeced one way or the other -- either by a tax system that they don't understand, or by a tax avoidance system that they don't understand. 1. Tax avoidance is not a crime. 2. There are lots of legal ways to avoid taxes, some of which involve not filing, stopping withholding, etc. 3. Each individual has three options: (A) remain ignorant of the law and keep volunteering with the IRS; (B) remain ignorant of the law and pay some shyster for a quick and easy solution; or (C) do the research yourself and become knowledgeable of some basic legal principles in general and the applicability of the tax code in particular. Options (A) and (B) both lead to various forms of slavery and/or persecution. Option (A) is easy and generally perceived as low-risk, but you never know. Option (B) is easy and extremely high-risk. Option (C) is low-risk and leads to freedom, but requires effort and personal responsibility. Obviously, most people pick Option (A). ...And then they wonder why we have big, bloated and oppressive government. To which the attorney responded: Ah, Lynda, I was going to ask where you got your training in tax law, but I guess you've already told us. Do you also make your own clothes and grow your own food, or do you pay those ripoff artists who are in the business of knowing how to do these things? It is always amazing to me that people can say with one breath [and with great reason] that "the laws have become impossibly complex, to the point where no one can possibly know if they are acting legally in most situations" and then advocate "self-education" in one of the most complex and arcane areas of the law, tax law. p&~p as my logic teacher use to say. My (FM's) comments: Attorneys play a game called "law." They'd like you to believe that only they are clever enough to understand "the law." You are helpless without them. You have to pay them thousands for their brilliant "advice." Mr. Attorney is so clever that he confidently and authoritatively denounces the approach used by 'J.Otis' as "*&^%$" -- without even having seen any of the principal documents used, and with no idea of how effectively they may have worked in practice. Some pretty bad things have been said about lawyers -- by Shakespeare, Jonathan Swift, and a few others. Some say that "attorney" literally means "twister of the truth." The following terms have been used above: "defrauders," "deceivers," "slightly below scum on the evolutionary scale," "agents provocateur," "various types of hucksters," "shyster," and "ripoff artists." Question: Who wants people to be free? -- the attorney or Lynda? Who depends for his "earnings" on the perpetuation of "the system?" Who has sold out to "the system" lock stock and barrel? Who would be largely or completely out of a job if people were free? What would it take for this attorney to follow the example of Geoffrey Thayer? Mr. Thayer used to be a licensed attorney. At some point he became aware of how rotten and corrupt "the system" was. As someone with self-respect, he couldn't continue to support such a "system" by being part of it. He might even have thought that to remain in "the system" would condemn him to being "slightly below scum on the evolutionary scale." Mr. Thayer exited "the system," and has since devoted his life and legal expertise to teaching others how to exit "the system" and live free. Mr. Attorney, do you have the self-respect and guts to do what Geoffrey Thayer did? Or do you condemn Mr. Thayer as a traitor for having turned his back on your "precious system" and denounce him as a "defrauder," "deceiver," "slightly below scum on the evolutionary scale," "agent provocateur," "type of huckster," "shyster," and "ripoff artist" for teaching people how to live free? Frederick Mann