Private Social Media Platform

Dale Eastman does capitalism in it's current manifestation have anything to do with free markets or property ownership?

Dale Eastman what I mean is it's authoritarian collectivism and not anything an anarchist wants anything to do with.

Dale Eastman every time I debate with a supporter of capitalism they never agree with any dictionary definition and are not familiar with the etymology of the word. What's there even to debate?

Gentlemen, thank you for engaging in a "discussion" of "capitalism". I like that you are both positing questions which is what one does to dig for knowledge and understanding.

Gents, your anti-capitalism biases are showing. Let me rephrase that claim, Gents, your anti-this specific ism biases are showing.

In other words, I am aware that you are both against a certain something-ism. I have no clue as to what, exactly, it is that you are both "against". You both fail to define what this, (my word) "Evil" is that you are against.

Serg, you claim:
➽ every time I debate with a supporter of capitalism they never agree with any dictionary definition and are not familiar with the etymology of the word.

I feel your frustration. <SNIP!> (I just cut myself off from a distracting tangential rant. We can examine that later if you have interest later.)

➽ they are not familiar with the etymology of the word.

Pretty sad that I find myself giving you kudos for knowing what etymology is.

➽ What's there even to debate?

I have seen more than my share of ahem... cough... ptooey... discussions between capitalists and anti-capitalists...

Both sides talk right past each other because of no agreement on what the term means.

I like that you are at least focused on finding a defined and defining starting point. Taking my guidance from your statement, I am going to start with some dictionary definitions.

𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕡𝕖𝕕𝕚𝕒
𝒞𝒶𝓅𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓂 𝒾𝓈 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒸 𝓈𝓎𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝒷𝒶𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝑜𝓌𝓃𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒽𝒾𝓅 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓂𝑒𝒶𝓃𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒻𝒾𝓉. 𝒞𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝒽𝒶𝓇𝒶𝒸𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝒸𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝒸𝒶𝓅𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓂 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝒶𝓅𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓁 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝓊𝓂𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓉𝒾𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝓀𝑒𝓉𝓈, 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝒸𝑒 𝓈𝓎𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓈, 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓉𝓎, 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓉𝓎 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉𝓈 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒾𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓊𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝒽𝒶𝓃𝑔𝑒, 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒶𝑔𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝒷𝑜𝓇.

ℂ𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞 𝔻𝕖𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 & 𝕄𝕖𝕒𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 - 𝕄𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕞-𝕎𝕖𝕓𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕣
𝒞𝒶𝓅𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓂 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒸 𝓈𝓎𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝒾𝓃 𝓌𝒽𝒾𝒸𝒽 𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝑒𝓉𝓎'𝓈 𝓂𝑒𝒶𝓃𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝒽𝑒𝓁𝒹 𝒷𝓎 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓋𝒾𝒹𝓊𝒶𝓁𝓈 𝑜𝓇 𝑜𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓏𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝓈, 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉, 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝒸𝓉𝓈, 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝒸𝑒𝓈, 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓊𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝒻 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓃𝓁𝓎 𝒷𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓉𝒾𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝒻𝓇𝑒𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝓀𝑒𝓉.

I place this next definition mostly as a reminder to myself as a segue to some of the contentious points in regard to capitalism. I'm not ready for this tangential distraction at this time. When it is time, I will engage on the specific points.

ℂ𝕒𝕞𝕓𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕘𝕖 𝔻𝕚𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕪
𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒸 𝓈𝓎𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝒷𝒶𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝑜𝓌𝓃𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒽𝒾𝓅 𝑜𝒻 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓉𝓎 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒷𝓊𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓈, 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝒶𝓁 𝑜𝒻 𝓂𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑔𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓈𝓉 𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓈𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒻𝒾𝓉𝓈 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑜𝓌𝓃𝑒𝓇𝓈

 ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀

Clearly, there is a connection between capitalism and profit. I have observed profit to be just as nebulously poorly defined as capitalism.

Discussion can not proceed absent agreement as to what, specifically, is meant by "profit". I deliberately fall silent on the different definitions I have seen bandied about...

Well... nearly silent. Anti-capitalists are anti-profit.

 ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀ ❀

Brett, I do not understand what 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 use the word-term "𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞". This severely limits communication and mutual understanding. I have stated this to you once already.

You ask:
➽ does capitalism in it's current manifestation have anything to do with free markets or property ownership?

You have failed to define for me exactly what 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 use the word-term "𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞".  Since I do not understand what you are asking me to compare, I simply can not give an answer.

You may as well ask me, Do mouse turds in it's current manifestation have anything to do with free markets or property ownership? This has the same logical connection as your question.

➽ what I mean is it's authoritarian collectivism and not anything an anarchist wants anything to do with.

Your imprecise use of words forces me to have to take your sentences apart word by word to attempt to understand the point or points you wish to present for myself and others to cogitate.

I am forced to assume that you intended to claim that capitalism is "authoritarian collectivism"...

Please define exactly what you mean by "authoritarian collectivism". Please be precise and articulate in doing so.

I am ignoring the red herring of the proper definition of anarchist.

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)

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 domestically earned compensation for labor?

Dale Eastman I wouldn't recommend you using that argument in tax court

➽ I wouldn't recommend you using that argument in tax court

I'm impressed that you even know tax court exists.

Didja know TC is not an article 3 court? Didja know it originally was an administrative hearing board? Didja know TC is for taxpayers?

Did UW - Milwaukee teach you to act on assumptions instead of digging for facts?

Why would you assume that I would even step foot into tax court? Why would you assume that I am within the 26 USC 7701(a)(14) statutory definition?

It's NOT an argument... It's a question. If you can't answer it, why did you even bother to reply?

Here's that question you ignored:

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 domestically earned compensation for labor?

Spit the bait out and just continue your lazy way down stream.

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 domestically earned compensation for labor?

Title 26 section 1 and 61

I am VERY SPECIFIC about the words I use.

Are you "ignorant" or are you "dishonest"?
My snarky question is not valid until I learn if you are one of "them".
So, for the moment I will assume you are not one of "them".
Thus I assume you are simply nescient. (not having knowledge about something: a nescient interpretation of the facts).
Nescient simply means "You don't know." Ignorant means you choose to NOT know.
Nescient also means, you don't know what you don't know.
Or in other words, you don't know what I know is a fact... Like what the other words of tax law actually are... And the effect of those other law's words have on §§ 1 and 61.

(You get credit for knowing of Section 1 and Section 61.)

Now the KEY word you missed is the word "LIABLE". If I am not "liable" for a tax on an item, how would I be required to pay said tax? How would I be required to pay a tax on my compensation for labor if I am "NOT LIABLE" for that tax?

I am going  to copy-paste my abridged quote of section 1. It is now your duty to insure my abridgement did not omit something of importance. Not pointing out such omission of something important is your agreement that I omitted nothing important.

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every estate, and
(2) every trust,
taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

Where in section 1 is a liability imposed on a person to pay one of those 5 classes of tax?

You also errantly mentioned § 61

     Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
    Subtitle A - Income Taxes
    CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
    Subchapter B - Computation of Taxable Income
    PART I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.
    §61. Gross income defined
    (a) General definition
    Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
    (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
    (2) Gross income derived from business;
    (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
    (4) Interest;
    (5) Rents;
    (6) Royalties;
    (7) Dividends;
    (8 ) Annuities;
    (9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
    (10) Pensions;
    (11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
    (12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
    (13) Income in respect of a decedent; and
    (14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Now for the edification of yourself an any other reading this dialog... Here's what a law imposing a liability looks like:
Sec. 5005. Persons liable for tax
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

The taxes imposed in subtitle a follow the same form. There are liability statutes that clearly define who is made liable for § 1 taxes.

I have found and read with my own eyes, the law that makes the following classes of person liable for the income tax imposed in section 1 "by clear and unequivocal language".

    Estate or trust fiduciary.
    Partner in a partnership.
    Nonresident alien individual.
    Alien individual resident in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands.
    Chapter 3 withholding agent.
    Chapter 4 withholding agent.

I am none of the above. Most people are none of the above as well.

The preceding classes of person are specifically pointed out as being required to pay (made liable for) the income tax imposed in section 1. This liability is imposed in language that is just as clear and unequivocal as the distilled spirits tax liability you were shown previously. This liability is not implied. There is no doubt and there is no question that those classes of person are liable for the section 1 income tax.

Dale Eastman it’s not even willful non filing. That’s a misdemeanor. You’d be a tax evasion felon. If you want a more detailed explanation, my hourly rate is $500 an hour. I hope you don’t convince anyone else to be foolish and temp fate. If you want to get yourself locked up, idc

➽ You’d be a tax evasion felon. If you want a more detailed explanation, my hourly rate is $500 an hour.

Why would I want to pay you $500 an hour to lie to me?

I have FRE#602 personal first hand knowledge of what the pertinent tax laws say.

ℂ𝕒𝕟 𝕀 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕞𝕚𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕞𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕖𝕧𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒 𝕥𝕒𝕩 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕀 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 ℕ𝕆𝕋 𝕓𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕞𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕣?

I took the time to do special FB text so you can not miss the question.

I'll post this a third time...
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)

And I will ask the same question, shortened, that you can not or will not answer:

𝕎𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕝𝕒𝕨 𝕞𝕒𝕜𝕖𝕤 𝕞𝕖 𝕃𝕀𝔸𝔹𝕃𝔼 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕒 𝕥𝕒𝕩 𝕠𝕟 𝕞𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕝𝕒𝕓𝕠𝕣?

My last post I did show you what a liability statute looks like.

➽ my hourly rate is $500 an hour.

Translation: He knows he will spend a boatload of time making naked assertions that are not in accordance with what the law says, and that pedantic asshole Eastman will not let such bullshit claims stand unchallenged.

As a layperson, I have no reason to pay for the Shepardizing Tools you lawyers use. You are aware, or you should be aware, that I fella that knows what Shepardizing and FRE#602 is, is not your usual ignarnt (sic) fella.