[net.taxes] yet another reply

alpert@chovax.DEC (03/16/86)

[]

>Hey! Bob's back! I assumed that he had disappeared because he didn't
>respond to my requests for explanations regarding taxes and the
>5th amendment. Maybe there's an apology in here...

No apology.  I "disappeared" primarily do to this node undergoing
some rather hefty hardware and software upgrades, plus I don't
always have time to keep up with net.taxes on a day-to-day basis.
 
[regarding "right to privacy"]
>	Really? Hey, Bob, which amendment to the constitution does this
>fall under?

Take a look at the fourth, has to do with the right of citizens
to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects (I don't have
a copy handy at the moment, I can provide the entire text if you desire.)

>Hey, Bob, what do you propose? What better ways do you have to obtain the
>money needed to run the government? Come on, it's easy to point out all the
>faults with the present system, but LET'S HEAR SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR 
>IMPROVEMENT. 

Start with pulling the fangs out of the IRS and cleaning house. We can
argue from now to doomsday about how much government we need or want,
and how to fund that government, but I can't imagine anyone believes we
need a Gestapo-like agency to enforce and collect taxes.  My own belief
is that a return to a limited federal government as proscribed in the
Constitution would be preferable, though I don't necessarily believe that 
it is politically possible to do so.  I'm also open to suggestions, that's
what this forum is all about.

>	Long article, Bob. And no apology for your previous distasteful
>behavior. C'mon, 'fess up - you're a member of the Posse Comitatus, huh?

As far as some of these articles being long, I always put a header line
with the article length, if you feel its not worth your while, just skip
over it.  And no, I'm not a member of Posse Comitatus or any other fascist
group.  It always amuses me that frequently the first thing people will
start up with when discussing these subjects is "you're a Communist" or
"You're a Nazi/Fascist."  Regarding the first, who out there can tell
me what the Second Plank in the Communist Manifesto is (as I recall it
was the second)?  Regarding fascism, I don't think you'll find many
Nazis taking to heart the Bill of Rights or the concepts of liberty and
freedom.  

I can recall no distasteful behaviour, unless it was to point out that the
phrase "self-incrimination" does not appear in the 5th Amendment (it is
a pet peeve of mine when people "quote" that phrase from it.)  BTW, it
was an attorney who pointed out to me that "bearing a witness against
oneself" is a more general case than "self-incrimination."   
 
>	Question: how come Ken Arndt, Don Black and Bob Alpert all post
>from DEC sites?  

For myself, I happen to work for DEC, can't speak for anyone else.

		Bob Alpert
		...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!alpert

mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/20/86)

Bob Alpert finally responds to my article (sorry about sounding antagonistic,
Bob, but the fact that you didn't respond but still managed to post 180 line
articles to this newsgroup led me to believe that you were another Ted Holden
(see net.origins) who posts arguable claims and then won't acknowledge the
opposition.

	As for your response:
> 
>[regarding "right to privacy"]
>>	Really? Hey, Bob, which amendment to the constitution does this
>>fall under?
>
>Take a look at the fourth, has to do with the right of citizens
>to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects (I don't have
>a copy handy at the moment, I can provide the entire text if you desire.)
>

	You cleverly distort the issue by paraphrasing your original 
statement, which was:
>Under the Constitution,
>citizens cannot be compelled to provide information that can be used
>against them and they are further presumed to have a right to privacy.

	Okay, I deserve a bit of blame here because it *was* a compound
sentence, but I was referring to the first part about providing information
to be used against them. I was trying to goad you into admitting that the 
5th amendment did indeed disallow self-incrimination, which you first
denied (see below) and then cited to back up your own arguments.

>
>I can recall no distasteful behaviour, unless it was to point out that the
>phrase "self-incrimination" does not appear in the 5th Amendment (it is
>a pet peeve of mine when people "quote" that phrase from it.)  BTW, it
>was an attorney who pointed out to me that "bearing a witness against
>oneself" is a more general case than "self-incrimination."   
> 
>		Bob Alpert
>
	The "distasteful behaviour" was the tone of superiority that
your article used:

	My statement:
>>>	I'm always amused by people who try to show how income tax is
>>>unconstitutional. 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination?

	Your reply:
>>By the way,
>>the 5th Amendment says nothing about "self-incrimination." Why
>>is it that I get the feeling most people have not set their eyes
>>on the Constitution since falling asleep in some Social Studies
>>class long ago... 

	This is not just pointing out that the words "self-incrimination"
do not appear in the amendment - it's denying that the concept is there.
Note that I never claimed that the words *were* there - do you see quotes
around my statement? Your statement is certainly false, because the amendment
does indeed say something about self-incrimination, although it doesn't use
that phrase. You obviously know this, because you said as much in a later
article that included a quote of the salient parts of the 5th.

	Anyway, sorry about the tone of hostility that I adopted - I'm
glad you're discussing things now. 

	As for your suggestions of what to do - you mentioned "taking
the fangs out of the IRS." That's a start, and I even agree with you. It
has always puzzled me as to why there is a separate tax court - one which
has a vested interest in deciding cases in the IRS' favor rather than
seeking justice. It seems to me that this is a violation of the checks and
balances between the Judiciary and the Executive branch. I'd bet that many
of the IRS abuses would go away if they had to answer to a more objective
authority. However, I wouldn't want to de-fang the IRS too much - after all,
they *do* need the ability to collect from unwilling parties. It just seems
to me that they could do their collecting after due process has rendered
a verdict about the case.

	One more thing - regarding the "Nazi" stuff and tax protesters -
I would in no way accuse you of being of that ilk (I don't know you, there's
no way I can tell that). However, most of the more vociferous tax protesters
I have heard about on the news are members of that sort of organization
(e.g. Posse Comitatus). I'll grant you that they're not "Nazis" in the strict
sense of the word, but they walk like Nazis, smell like Nazis and quack like
Nazis - they've just changed their name. I'm sure we don't have any real
Nazis on the net - rn is probably beyond the comprehension of their walnut-
sized brains.

	I like to hear your ideas - that's what discussion is all about,
so please keep posting. Don't, however, be surprised if I don't always
agree with you...




-- 
					--MKR

"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The 
 terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency."
						- Albert Einstein