Private Social Media Platform

https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-explains-laws-incomprehensible-writing-style-0819

I read the MIT article NN posted. Good read. I would appreciate a discussion of a specific set of laws. In light of the article's implied claim that legalese is not understandable.
Internal Revenue Code
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof,  [shall have bad things happen blah, blah.]

Where are the rules requiring persons to obey the requirement?

Can a person willfully fail to pay a tax if that person is NOT made liable to pay that tax?

Internal Revenue Code
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, [shall have bad things happen blah, blah.]

Can a person willfully attempt to evade a tax that person has not been made liable for?

My moral view is that for a contract to be valid, it must be:

    1. An actual written, signed contract (digital is fine).
    2. Agreed to willingly, free from any coercion or duress whatsoever.
    3. While fully lucid and informed.


I can't speak to the written "legalese" on the issue.

Magic spells and threats of violence have no authority over what is right or wrong.

And after multiple different tests, I've found that lawyers tend not to have any ability to think critically.

Their job requires them to navigate legalese magic spells to convince people of things.

Their job does not require them to discern and accurately communicate how reality (or morality) works.

One attorney I struck up a debate with argued that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what can be argued for the best.

Imagine the implications of that.

my short, hot-take: laws require long convoluted writing because humans are antithetical to being governed by laws and will squeeze through cracks exactly like water when you clench your fist.

that's a good take

The outright laziness of humans in the liberty movement who bitch and whine about tax law having never put eyes on it is my motivation for citing sec. 7201 & 7203. This segued from the original article's post, hence I called it a thread hijack.
Though I was never in harm's way, my 4 years gave me time to think about, If my M-16 is out of ammo, that dead enemy's AK-47 is what I would then use until it's out of ammo.
I also had my hands on a booklet titled "Turning the Regs Around"
How many of you are/were familiar with marcstevens.net before he quit?

I tried marcstevens.net but it came up blank.

As the leftys say, I respect the "diversity of tactics" within some limits.

Those who want to wage lawfare for us are fine by me.

Here's the "but":

The devil has infinite ways to deceive.

Commies for example can't think that well, so they often use the same arguments.

One argument they always use is "But did you even read Marx?"

The implication being that you are unqualified to speak against communism if you haven't read their propaganda.

And in that propaganda they redefine terms and indoctrinate the brainless into a tangled web of nonsense.  Marx literally uses an imaginary definition for exploitation.  When they say exploitation, they mean something different than what the word means.

So when you say "A willfully chosen job is not inherently exploitation" they will say "How can you say that!?  You don't even know that we use our own definition of exploitation, you ignoramus!  You clearly haven't even read Marx!"

So,

Nothing wrong with reading Marx, but it is not a prerequisite to knowing that communism is not how economics work.  What you need to know is - how economics works.

And,

Nothing wrong with reading Mein Kampf for educational purposes.  But it is not a prerequisite to know that gassing people is evil.  What you need to know is morality.

Likewise with tax law:

Someone could spend their life reading all millions of lines written in the tyrant's laws book.
I guarantee the tyrant can hire more law writers to keep writing more laws than you could ever read.
I mean... look around.

Or,

That same someone could exile the tyrant.

There is merit to most of what you wrote. Except you are flat out wrong about the income tax law. I can prove that statement and this is where I usually get ghosted. Care to continue our dance?

  Can a person willfully attempt to evade a tax that person has not been made liable for?

What is the purpose of learning the tax laws?

And by that, what is meant is that if everyone knew the tax laws, would they no longer have to pay taxes?

That's the main point here, correct?

I'd be happy to hear your reasons and arguments.
I could totally be missing something, and if so I always want to know about it.

There are lots of areas of knowledge to learn about.
There is a general hierarchy to what's good to prioritize learning about.
There are also personal factors that would make one body of knowledge a higher priority for this person or that person.

So, here are some honest questions about your views:

Why should an average person learn about law?
Does this apply to everyone?  Or just people living in places where taxe laws are enforced?  Or just people in the US?  Or just voluntarists?
And why is tax law unique among other areas of law?
Why not international, civil, criminal, or any other area of the law?

Here is that question again:
 Can a person willfully attempt to evade a tax that person has not been made liable for?
I will reword this as an incomplete question: Can a person willfully attempt to evade a tax that has not been imposed?
You asked:

    What is the purpose of learning the tax laws?

If you have no knowledge of the tax laws, how would you know when the IRS lies to you?

    And by that, what is meant is that if everyone knew the tax laws, would they no longer have to pay taxes?

You are already not paying attention. This is about tax on your payroll.

    That's the main point here, correct?

No. Focus. Payroll tax.

    Why should an average person learn about law?

As the criminals in government claim: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    Does this apply to everyone?

Everyone working for a living in any of the 50 States united.

    Or just people living in places where tax laws are enforced?

Where are the income tax laws enforced?

    why is tax law unique among other areas of law?

Direct taxes must be apportioned.

https://synapticsparks.info/tax/ExamineFedTax.html
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/FORM-1040.html

They claim.  That's my point.  Anyone can claim anything.

And if I avoid their enforcement of that claim, then I would be willfully (intentionally) not complying with that claim.
Whether that claim is valid or not is a different story.
If they make no attempt to enforce the claim, then whether I failed to pay it or not isn't relevant as far as I can tell.

So, the state may have the power to enforce prima nocta, but that does not make it right for them to do so.

If i have not willfully, explicitly, freely agreed with their claim, and they enforce their claim on me,
then they defacto claim ownership of another human being.
That would make me a slave and they my ruler.

So, the state may claim that direct taxes must be apportioned.

As far as I'm concerned, that's just some dude saying some random BS.
That dude may have an entire army and the support of most of the millions of habitants in this country.
That dude may bring all of that down to bear on me to enforce that claim.
That dude could write 40 quintillion lines of "law" to justify the claim.

If the claim aligns with what is morally and factually right, then it's right.
But if the claim is wrong, it is still wrong.

Some call that dude the levaithon.  I call him some dumb cunt.

They may come and say,

"As it is written in the official tome of dreadfully serious statutes,
The third book, section 23, passage 32.683q...
Wingardium Leviosaaa!"

And then they bring down their lawyers and military might, the support of the hoard of brainless statists, and the leviathan in all of its powerful majesty...

None of that will make anyone fly.

Because in the end, laws are just words written down, everyone who enthusiastically follows those laws are enthralled by fiction, and underneath that polyester robe, every judge is just some cunt like the rest of us.

So based on that premise, how to know if an FBI agent is lying is the same as if anyone else is violating your natural rights:

Is he violating your natural rights?
Is he claiming that he has the right to do so?

If yes to both, he's lying.  Or just a moron.
Either way, he's wrong.

...Not that that would stop them from using coercion or violence to control someone.
But actually I am interested in sections 7201 and 7203.
It sounds like you discovered some significance to them.

In your view, can someone willfully fail to pay something they're not liable to pay?

It seems to me the answer is yes.

Was there ever an agreement to pay ANY of these taxes?
No, because there isn't any contractual consent that exists, because its not consent if the only reason people are paying is because of govco's coercion.

So, what is the purpose of learning these laws?
Will that somehow aid in stopping the collection of taxes? How?

Well there are a lot of smart people who are into lawfare.

Pursuing policy changes and things.  Minarchists, libertarians, et cetera.

It's not my bag, but if those more inclined are able to make progress I tend to support it.

It takes all types.

Sure, that's what the question is meant to address. The purpose behind learning the laws.

Rather than assume, would prefer to hear the intended purpose stated clearly, concisely, and completely.

Wait until you finally give up and withdraw it all, cause the tax man is standing right there waiting...

You don't know what you don't know.
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestic receipts?

SCOTUS has said:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

Dale Eastman They'll lock your ass up until you die anyway, they do not care. They get about 99% compliance with their "voluntary system", and there are many fairly high profile cases of those who have fought the system. One that comes to mind is Irwin Schiff.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff

Please answer the question:
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestic receipts?

Dale Eastman The question is irrelevant. The consequences of acting against those who make up whatever answer they deem appropriate is what matters.

I accept your offer to role play. You are the judge. Judge, What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestic receipts?

You attribute the subsistence conditions of workers to monetary policy rather than to capitalists. While I agree monetary policy has an effect, it is not the bulk of exploitation. The bulk of exploitation is done directly by capitalists. When you say government is a power system, yes, it's part of a power system. Its purpose is to assist capitalists in consolidating power. Liberal governments live in the context of the power system that created them - one in which the primary contradiction is between labor and capital. You suggest that most workers earning subsistence wages are unskilled and require education. I'd encourage you to meet migrant workers. They are often university educated, but find that manual labor jobs in imperial core countries pay more than advanced jobs in their home countries. Further, consider why so many workers are uneducated. An educated proletariat is dangerous to capital, as Reagan's advisor warned. I'd encourage you to really observe the skill and efficiency of the so-called warm bodies you mention. Not in the US, but in the world where most production happens. The US is a sliver of global capitalism. Very little labor happens here compared to the rest of the world. You need to consider Bangladesh or the Philippines or Congo in your analysis.

➽ I use a materialist analysis as my main lens to understand political processes. I observe the power relations and interests of parties involved, the system as a whole with its superstructures, and I use those observations to make predictions and guide alternatives that prevent the same kind of systemic power concentration capitalism creates.

I like what you are saying in regard to analyzing things.
I take issue with your assumption and claim that capitalism creates "systemic power concentration". My taking issue could be my own bias. That bias could be because I have been misinformed about things. If so, then I expect our dialogue to give me reason to re-evalute my bias position.

➽ conceptions of rights

I would like a near future discussion of "rights". With the understanding that "rights" are a human created thing with a purpose, unsaid Said purpose to be examined.

➽ Material analysis much-better incorporates the real political relations everyone experiences.

Material analysis much-better ANALYZES real political relations.

➽ Marxism has evolved a lot in the better part of two centuries. Many of your responses are related to events that occurred later than Marx's analysis.

Many of my responses are because of self-proclaimed Marxists that I have attempted to engage in discussion. They could not and would not present logical points for me to cogitate. As I wrote above, You caused me to think. You are the first Marxian leaning person to give me reason to do so.

➽ Marx's overall framework (dialectical materialism) and many of his specific observations [...] are still very applicable today.

Yes. But before I could affirm your claim I had to cure my nescience in regard to "dialectical materialism". I am relatively well read, yet I had to look this term up. So the failure to explain this is a flaw in the standard Marxian claims. from Greek dialektike (techne) "(art of) philosophical discussion or discourse," fem. of dialektikos "of conversation, discourse," from dialektos "discourse, conversation"

I suspected this from what the word dialectical  sounds/ looks like:
1570s, "language, speech, mode of speech," especially "form of speech of a region or group, idiom of a locality or class" as distinguished from the general accepted literary language, also "one of a number of related modes of speech regarded as descended from a common origin," from French dialecte, from Latin dialectus "local language, way of speaking, conversation," from Greek dialektos "talk, conversation, speech;" also "the language of a country, dialect," from dialegesthai "converse with each other, discuss, argue," from dia "across, between" (see dia-) + legein "speak" from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak (to 'pick out words')").

Adding the second word: materialism (n.) 1748, "philosophy that nothing exists except matter" I interpret this as the science of discussing physical reality and not discussing concepts and ideas about physical reality.

➽ [...] his specific observations (such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) [...]

This is a claim that needs to be examined. I can not opine without more information... A discussion to get to the truth.

➽ [...] that doesn't mean we can't adapt his framework

His framework was an unknown to me until this discussion where you motivated me to learn more about this framework with these two words; "Marxian analysis". I am still analyzing my anti anti-capitalism bias and my new awareness of that bias.

➽ We can make observations today about the behavior of capitalists using Marxian analysis without limiting ourselves to the information available at the time of Marx.

I agree with making these observations today. I deny your implication that I am focused only on the past. In writing this I became aware that Marxian analysis is not what has been promoted in regard to Marx in the mainstream. Part of my bias. To be examined deeper.

The class identified and labeled capitalist has not been defined to my satisfaction. I do see some negative traits of some persons, human or corporate, that I find would fit in this undefined class of persons.

➽ the changes that followed since then have been largely a product of class struggle

I am not unaware of some instances of this struggle. The hours of what is considered a work day I find is a sub-topic worthy of discussion. Marx did focus on the reality of the working day length and the amount of labor needed to value for value trade labor for subsistence requirements.

In reviewing what I just wrote I'm thinking the class of capitalists may need a more nuanced, detailed definition. I have the same problem of Capital as a class being reified and analyzed as a sole entity as I do with Government also being reified into a sole entity. I use Santa Claus to highlight and show this reification. Santa is not real. It is a concept treated as a real entity. So which mall Santa is the real one?

➽ New approaches have been developed by capitalists to maintain control in response to worker adaptations to resist control.

This statement segues to examining these controls. Who is controlling what, and by what means? Is it fuck the workers because they aren't me? Is it folks with this control have no moral compass? Johnny Five need input.

➽ you mentioned that the capitalist does contribute to production, but the contribution you mentioned is negative. This means that the capitalist extracts, but does not contribute.

Value must be created before it can be extracted.
No means of production, no production. No jobs for the laborer. No value paid to laborers for their labor. No products manufactured for sale to those who need or want what is being created. No value created.

This raises the question for me, What does the math say? Note to self: Do the math: examine in light of above.

➽ This creates inefficiency. If the capitalist is removed, the economy of the system is more efficient. This is why we say capitalists have a parasitic effect.

Please define the inefficiency created. What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of the capitalist parasites? I ask this with the assumption that not all humans with capital to invest are in the parasite sub-class.

➽ You called yourself a capitalist when you mentioned you were an owner. I disagree. When you owned the truck, you began operating a socialist business- that is, a business wherein you, the worker, also owned your own capital. Unless you hired your own employees and made the majority of your income by extracting from them, you were not a capitalist.

I will agree that I was not a parasite capitalist.
Socialist leaning folks are really focused on the issue of owning the means of production. I owned my own means of my own production. For this reason "Socialist business" does not align with my understanding of business, nor with my biases. Again I see subtleties and nuances need exploring in the definitions used; which will also explore my biases for a reality check.

➽ Unfortunately, you were operating a socialist business in a capitalist economy.

This comes back to the conundrum of definitions not being precise. As I recall since I'm composing this over several days or weeks, Marxian analysis is about determining the truth of reality.

➽ Had you organized with fellow owner-operators and reached significant scale, it may have been possible to demand better compensation than you had when you were an employee.

If five people demand 25% of a pie, there will not be enough pie for everyone to get 25%. How big is the pie? How to divvy up the pie is at the crux of the Labor - Capital class struggle.

➽ While you may have removed the contradiction between yourself and your employer, you effectively just became a freelance contractor for other capitalists, providing them services directly.

Freelance contractor - Yes. An accurate description that I agree with.

What is the contradiction you are hinting at?

The terms of my first contract were onerous. I was required to remain contracted for a year or get charged $500 for the safety device that they required on my tractor. A safety device that prevented the safety issue called "high-hooking". Explanation upon request.

➽ This might even reduce your overall power, while also increasing your liabilities.

Take something as big as a small home, put it on wheels, and roll it down the road. The issue is Who pays the insurance? Me as the contractor owning my truck, or the employer owning their truck?

The mind sets of employed drivers and lease drivers owning their own tractors are not the same. Having done both for the same big company, Employed drivers are focused on, When am I going to get home, as the tractor owner, Don't send be home - I have tractor payments to pay. I'll tell you when I need to go home.

For another carrier I had a Canadian load coming back to near where I lived. Cross border, tarped load. I said I'll wave at the delivery point as I drive by empty. And I did. I'm not out here to make back-haul fuel.