Billy Beck, Death, And Taxes
Aug 19, 05 | 1:56 pm by John T. KennedyI recently witnessed a chat between Lynette and Billy Beck. Billy said he’d told his Uncle that he “now & then contemplates burning himself on the capitol steps”. From the transcript:
Wm J Beck III: This evening, I described to my mother’s brother how her baby boy now & then contemplates burning himself on the capitol steps.
Lynette Warr3n: Not trying to be cryptic. I just want to be clear
Wm J Beck III: It’s literally funny: I never even allude to that without suspecting that anyone who’s ever seen it before will suspect that I’m having an acute episode.
Lynette Warr3n: I know better
Wm J Beck III: It’s not, of course. This is chronic: low-level, but always present.
Wm J Beck III: Well, my uncle had never heard it before. He drew a sharp breath, and said, slowly and quietly: “That’s pretty heavy.”
Wm J Beck III: I was right instantly up in his face: “Well, what the motherfuck do you think it’s ever going to *take*?”
Self-immolation
This was by no means the first time we’d heard Beck speak of thinking along these lines. He’s spoken of such matters in chat before, he’s even blogged about it recently. Upon witnessing the chat cited above I blogged an entry contrasting Thoreau’s determination to live in the world “be it good or bad” with Beck’s perspective. Beck soon contacted me and we had another chat. Then he wrote a post saying that Lynette and I seemed to be exhibiting “a good deal of the emotive force of hysterics” and that “Their estimation of my personal devotion to an ideal of freedom rises almost to the level of resentment because I am so serious about it.”
I had already decided to discuss all of this publicly but those comments will help make clear why. I’m doing so because I think that in public it will be more difficult for Beck to sustain the idea that we are resentful of his devotion to freedom or that we are in hysterics. Sometimes an audience can provide a reality check. Since he cares what people think about him I think he’ll find it more difficult to dismiss what we have to say in public than in private.
Beck says he cannot pay taxes. I say the fact that he does proves that he can:
jtk3isme: you pay taxes billy, so it seems to me you can
Wm J Beck III: What did you say?
jtk3isme: i said you pay taxes
Wm J Beck III: I mean: is that really what you intended to say?
jtk3isme: yes
Wm J Beck III: What are you talking about?
jtk3isme: you pay sales tax and other taxes
Wm J Beck III: John… have you *never* paid attention?
jtk3isme: sure I have
Wm J Beck III: I wouldn’t pay *those*, either, if I could find a way to stop it, and this fact has a serious implication.
jtk3isme: you do pay them, which means you *can*
Wm J Beck III: I’ll tell you what I’ll do: I will set up a fucking robot to let you know every Saturday that I haven’t burned myself on the Capitol steps. Will you shut your fucking impertinent mouth then?
jtk3isme: not a bit of it
Wm J Beck III: No, sir: I can’t. They’re different things.
jtk3isme: one theft is in princple different from another?
Wm J Beck III: No, they are different in practice. However, let me put it to you this way: by your way of thinking, I just die tomorrow. Will *that* shut you up?
jtk3isme: No, it will shut you up.
Wm J Beck III: You’re implying a problem of integrity, and I know the solution. Is that what you’re looking for?
Wm J Beck III: That should be at *least* as attractive to everyone involved.
Wm J Beck III: Certainly, the punk Swann might be satisfied.
jtk3isme: I’m not implying any lack of integrity for paying your taxes
Wm J Beck III: Look, John: don’t try to bullshit me.
jtk3isme: I say it’s fine
Wm J Beck III: It’s *not*.
jtk3isme: no really it is okay to live in the world, be it good or evil
jtk3isme: they commit a crime but you do not by paying
We’ve had the same discussion a number of times. Every time we do Beck chooses to construe it as an implicit attack on his integrity, as if I were saying he ought not be paying sales tax and other taxes. On the contrary, I’m saying that it’s fine for him to pay sales tax and it would be fine for him to pay income tax. I’m saying his behavior demonstrates that he judges that paying sales tax is better for him than not paying it - else he wouldn’t pay. His behavior demonstrates that he judges he should pay sales tax (which of course is not to say he should have to pay it, he shouldn’t) to get on with pursuing other values.
And he could pay income tax to get on with pursuing his other values.
Paying taxes is no moral crime and it need not be a vice.
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 2:27 pm
>>Paying taxes is no moral crime and it need not be a vice.
I’m less sure of this. Certainly, expecting people to not pay taxes even when they will be jailed/killed by not doing so is unreasonable. That said, allowing one’s resources to be taken by The Machine does make The Machine stronger, and improves its abilty to extort yet more resources from others.
This would seem to make reducing the amount of taxes one personally pays to an absolute minimum a high priority. Done intelligently, it should not only increase one’s own liberty (more $$$$ hahaha) but also slightly decrease the threat the State poses to the liberty of others.
The trick, of course, is doing this without getting squashed. But some means do seem to be available, and they certainly can be improved upon. The State’s many weaknesses — inefficiency, sluggish central planning, capacity for self-delusion, etc. should definitely be used against it.
We have important work to do — we should get on with it.
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 2:38 pm
That’s not my fault.
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 3:50 pm
T.J.:
“That said, allowing one’s resources to be taken by The Machine does make The Machine stronger, and improves its abilty to extort yet more resources from others.” (emphasis added)
So… if I pay taxes am I allowing it or are they being extorted from me? It can’t be both.
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 9:44 pm
Madison,
Would my keeping every last cent of the taxes that are extracted from me really reduce the amount of government coercion I experience? By how much?
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 10:16 pm
I think Madison means it in the same sense that you shouldn’t litter at 60mph; it doesn’t benefit you directly, it only benefits you if everyone else follows the same rule.
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 10:22 pm
That’s what my thinking is too, Stefan.
“If we all did it…”
But we ain’t all gonna do it, that’s what the Prisoner’s Dilemma is.
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 11:21 pm
John… at this point no matter how much you flail and grope and twitch and groan and ask endless stupid questions…
You ain’t bringing him back.
Trust me on this one.
It’s over.
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 11:28 pm
“Too stupid for tears.”
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 11:38 pm
Kennedy, are you going to do what Beck asked?
See… I’ll be happy to give a runny shit about your and various other Not Reasonites call on my decision to dispose of my blog as I saw fit, just as soon as you honor the request of Billy.
Until then.
Fuggedaboutit.
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 11:42 pm
http://www.ianism.com/?postid=636
Yeah, both Ian Scott and I saw that post by Lynette.
I would say, that you are right. You and Lynnette really *are* too stupid for tears.
Seriously… it’s actually kinda fun going back to Usenet, and seeing how McPhillips had your number.
Smart man, that McPhillips *and* he had his ethics straight…Do you still see Billy’s writing up at Union Square Journal John?
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 11:42 pm
What request? Are you Billy’s agent now?
August 19th, 2005 at Aug 19, 05 | 11:57 pm
Whaddya mean Kennedy?
Agent?
For what?
For who?
For what purpose?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:06 am
Meaghan,
Calm down. I fear you are headed for another “complete breakdown” and nobody wants to read about that again.
Seriously, you need to work on impulse control.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:13 am
Tell me John… when you went thousands upon thousands of posts on Vince Foster, Waco, Clinton on usenet, was that a sign of *your* mental illness? Funny how the standards shift don’t they?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:18 am
I am actually enjoying this.
For every post that you make attacking me… it’s one less minute of your time spent, trying to smear and attack Billy… somebody who I value.
That amuses me at this point actually.
It adds a certain *motivation* to it.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:24 am
“was that a sign of *your* mental illness?”
I wasn’t hospitalized, if that’s what you’re asking.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:28 am
Did you have post-partum depression too John?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:29 am
How have I ever smeared Billy Beck?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:37 am
Your implications are clear that according to you and Lynette Billy is somehow “flawed” to have the values and make the choices that he has done.
He’s not asked for your help, nor has he compelled you to do anything when it comes to his situation or deal with the consequences of his choices.
His life belongs to *him*.
What he chooses to do with him, is properly *only* up to him.
This is a principle that somebody who has applied and integrated libertarian ethics into their own lives understands.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:38 am
Your implications are clear that according to you and Lynette Billy is somehow “flawed” to have the values and make the choices that he has done.
I think he’s mistaken in his conclusion that the only thing left for him to do is wait to die.
He’s not asked for your help
Has Billy asked for your help in representing him on this blog?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:42 am
Go back to the “Eating Nanook” thredlets over on Usenet Kennedy.
Re-read the entire 1000 or so usenet posts about it.
Repeat, until you understand the part about “Man qua Man”
You may think you are demeaning myself, or Billy or Mike Schnieder with this whole thing…
But all you are doing is demonstrating with circles and arrows and broad strokes that you never really understood why “eating nanook” was “wrong”.
You still don’t.
That’s why you still have this strange idea, that what Billy does with his life to live or die according to his values, is somehow your business.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 12:51 am
>”I think he’s mistaken in his conclusion that the only thing >left for him to do is wait to die.”
He hasn’t said that. He’s talked about what could happen or what his choices might be, if things go from bad to worse.
>>He’s not asked for your help
>Has Billy asked for you to be his representative on the >blog?
Nope.
But like I told Kennedy.
Every post/minute that you spend attacking me.. is one less
minute from your campaign to burn down my friend.
I value Billy. So it serves my purposes to stay here and take pot-shots on the both of you… I’ll be happy to do so.
It *pleases* me to do this.
In fact…I am “honoured” to do so.
Have you ever watched or played Hockey Lynette?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:01 am
“Since he cares what people think about him I think he’ll find it more difficult to dismiss what we have to say in public than in private.”
Kennedy…
You don’t exist for him anymore.
It’s really and truly over.
There’s *nothing* that you could do at this point to suck him back in to your *game* here.
It’s a little like how Martin McPhillips feels about me.
For exactly the same reasons.
I was *wrong* when I went after McP, the way you are now going after Billy.
The difference is, I understand this now.
I can’t change it… and I can never make it right with him (McP) for the exact same reasons.
But I’m honest enough to admit my errors in both judgement and morality. Live and learn, and continue striving to be the best *human being* qua *human being* as you possibly can. Or Not.
Your choice John.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:03 am
Meaghan,
“…your campaign to burn down my friend…”
Is that supposed to be a joke?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:05 am
Not until you sing.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:06 am
“Is that a joke”?
Nope.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:09 am
“not until you sing”
Keep it coming Kennedy.
As I have said to you… it is an honor, and a privelage for me to take this heat, instead of watching you carry on doing this to Billy.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:18 am
This is a principle that somebody who has applied and integrated libertarian ethics into their own lives understands.
Meaghan, how about integrating some contraception? It’ll keep you out of the hospital.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:29 am
Oh Lynette,
I thought your darling husband had a problem with people using contraception, and abortions to deal with the risks and problems associated with sex and reproduction.
Don’t you remember sweetheart?
Spinning the Way Back Machine to the American Liberty archives.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:35 am
I thought your darling husband had a problem with people using contraception
As usual, you thought wrong.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:37 am
“As usual, you thought wrong”
Hey Mike…
Do you still have the American Liberty archives?
This ought to be fun.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:40 am
Stop Meaghan, I’m begging you. Nobody wants to hear the story about your “clump of meat” again.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 1:59 am
Nice. Attack each other instead of the state. “Not Reason” does seem a fitting epithet for this place.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 2:06 am
n th ff chnc tht Blly s stll dvtng ny tm t mntrng th rmpr-rm nstd f plyng gtrs, hv mdst sggstn: f, bfr th nd f Thngs, y dcd nt t hv ny kds, pls dnt gnrsly t sprm bnks ll crss th frty plns.
Tll ‘m y’r Pltzr Prz-wnnng Nw Yrk Tms crrspndnt — tht shld sh y rght n.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 2:17 am
I’m enjoying the extra traffic from this thread.. but I’m wondering.. can anyone tell me what the hell Lynette was talking about with her comment on my post regarding removing a post from the front page of my site?
I removed a post about my fucking previous landlord.. and then posted that I had removed it from the front page, and ended up with a comment from someone that said his/her name was Lynette, and said it was “too funny for tears.”
Are the people that post here and comment here sane? Is this where this Lynette person hangs out? It/He/She linked to this blog in It’s/His/Hers comment, which made absolutely no sense.
Is this supposed to be some sort of like.. ‘libertarian’ blog?
And who exactly is this Lynette person anyhow, and what the fuck was she talking about in her comment on my post anyhow?
Does she “tear” a lot? Excuse me, but I’m kind of confused here. I thought this was a blog about libertarianism. Which is sorta what my blog is about - although my blog also has some other general personal vignettes as well.
Would anyone care to explain why I am getting hits to my blog from this blog, and have someone named Lynette posting shit that makes no sense on my blog?
Are you people for real, or what? And who the fuck is this John Kennedy guy, who seems to wonder if Ian Scott is really Ian Scott? Would you like to come up and meet me?
I am who I am. I find it hard to believe that some so called libertarian blog has contributors that fucking project their own insane thinking.
Although yes.. I do appreciate the extra traffic :)
But are you people seriously for real?? I dunno.. maybe it’s just because I live in Canada, and have my own unrealistic ideas of libertarianism.. but what the fuck is about some asshole named John, and some bitch named Lynette, asking weird and fucked up questions on my blog that make no sense?
I invite questions from anyone.. but please.. would you at least put some thought into the questions? Or if you’re going to comment, and link to a libertarian blog, put some thought into your comments? I have no fucking clue what “too stupid for tears” is.. as per this chick named Lynette.. on some post that refers to a post about my previous landlord..
But I think you are all nuts. Paranoid chestnuts to be exact. Horse chestnuts.. not the good eating kind.
Would John and/or Lynette kindly explain their strange comments on my blog of late? Do you both make strange comments regularly?
And what exactly is a blog post that is “too stupid for tears”?
Does this Lynette person think? Critically think? Or does this Lynette person project his/her own emotive thinking?
I’ve visited this blog a few times over the past year or so.. some stuff, I liked.. but sheesh.. who the fuck are these people, exactly?
People who suggest that my blog is possibly not by me, Ian Scott, or who suggest a post about my previous landlord, and removing it from the front page is “too stupid for tears.”
Are you all idiots, that don’t understand a whit about libertarianism? Except the basics? Because they sound nice to you?
Either Lynette (is that a woman’s or man’s name, by the way? I don’t know, so I’m asking) or John care to actually write about reality instead of their silly projections here?
Or come back to my blog, and ask realistic questions that aren’t idiotic and make no sense? (Especially aimed at Lynette - I have no fucking clue what the hell you were talking about in your comment to my post).
I think I’m outta here.. from this no treason blog.. while shaking my head. Holy fuck.. what a weird place this is.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 2:20 am
“I am who I am.”
Edward T. Bear was who she was too: Meaghan.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:04 am
Yeah, so? What the fuck has that to do with me, exactly?
Are you so fucking nutty that that you wonder about insane ideas? Is that what this blog is all about?
Hell.. I know MWW.. and I know her husband. They are clients of mine. Is that reason to suspect stupidity on your part?
You people are nutty. What the fuck is it with this Lynette person, making some totally weird and bizarre comment?
Do you both project this way often?
But keep sending the traffic my way. I’d really appreciate traffic especially to my post about “intellectual honesty.”
There is NO fucking excuse for moronism. None whatsoever. You do realize that, right? Thinkers should think.. not be morons. Or even ask moronic questions.
You understand that concept, don’t you? Are you people for real?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:16 am
Ahem… Lynette,
Pay attention please
The Money quote from American Liberty:
[ People: code your links or use tinyurl.com. It isn’t hard. JL ]
Link
From: “John T. Kennedy”
Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 1:52 am
Subject: Re: [American_Liberty] Re: Pregnancy, IVF and the RIGHTS of Sperm.Blastocyts and Embryos and HUMAN BEINGS john_t_kennedy
Offline
Send Email
— somena2001 wrote:
> — In American_Liberty@y…, “John T. Kennedy”
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Have you Stopped Killing your Children John?
> >
> > No, I never started.
> >
>
> Never had sex with a woman on the Pill -
> Deprovra, or IUD?
That’s right. Never, to the best of my knowledge; and I have no reasonable doubts on this matter whatsoever. How far do you want to take this line of questioning Meaghan?
Even if I had, it could only reflect upon me and not the merit of my argument. But thrash onward if if it makes you feel better.
=====
John T. Kennedy
No Treason!
http://www.no-treason.com/weblog/
**********************
This was after a long detailed discussion where Kennedy went on and on about the rights of pre-viable fetuses, blastocytes and frozen embryos…claiming that life begins at conception, and blanking out that the pill and various other forms of contraception don’t actually prevent conception, in many cases they just keep fertilized eggs from adhering themselves to the uterine walls.
It’s an interesting threadlet.. especially when you consider the context of what’s currently happening now.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:19 am
Here’s a little blast from the past Kennedy…
Remember Ray Heizer’s maxim about “phoney’s don’t phone”.
Go take a look around Ian Scott’s blog, and give him or his business partner, Wendy a call at their place of business in Ontario tommorow. Or hell, for that matter, go visit some of the other Canadian bloggers who have met Ian Scott in person.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:28 am
Heh, although I’m dismayed at the bickering going on here, I find it funny how thoroughly Meaghan just 0wn3d you guys.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:28 am
Meaghan,
Can I talk to Eeyore and Tigger?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:32 am
My phone number is easily obtainable.. just do a whois: 519-940-3504.
But I’m rather interested in discussing this issue about where “life” begins as well. Hmmm… a subject I’m very interested in.
Let’s start a discussion on that. Let’s also be sure to set aside our “beliefs” and decide that we’ll only consider fact.
And then whatever “conclusions” we come to, we agree that they are based on belief. But our belief may be incorrect..
Interesting concept.. and off topic for this post.. but what the hay..
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:38 am
If you really want to talk to Eeyore and Tigger… I’ll see what I can do.
Tigger will probably agree. Eeyore, I’m not sure.
Especially since you and Lynette have already demonstrated your ethics about how little you care for people’s privacy or keeping confidences.
Owl, was actually a composite creation by myself and Eeyore… a cariacture of Neo-Cons: Ditto Napoleon, who was ressurrected to mock this worship of “Imperialism” that we have been seeing in various right-wing blogs.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:42 am
So.. now you have my number.. can I have Lynette’s number, the one who thinks that one of my posts is “too stupid for tears,” and try to figure out what the hell she meant or was projecting?
Is Lynette a horny bitch, by the way? Phone calls are awesome for getting off together, you know?
But that’s an aside.. tomorrow, I’ll be getting off with a friend of mine who is learning about libertarian thought. She don’t give a shit about Lynette or John Kennedy, or who the fuck these people are, and what projections they have about my posts.
And yeah, I gurantee.. the flesh will be real, that is touching against each other.. there will be sparks.. and kisses.. and physical reactions that are difficult to define with reason.
But I’ll keep my phone by my side, in case Lynette wants to talk about stupidity and tears. I hope she won'’t mind lots of breathing and giggling, and sounds of wet kissing, or sounds of orgasm. That is reality.
If she wants to hear.
I’m seriously trying to figure out what the hell she was talking about on my blog.
But I’m off to bed. I think I shall go and fantasize about MWW… and sharing thoughts of reality.. that which is real.. instead of the usual projection I’m used to from women named Lynette.
MWW.. come do me.. hard..
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:46 am
Ian, what is this obsession with using the word “projection” every few minutes? You do it on your blog, too. What the heck?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:47 am
Jeez Meaghan, everybody who’s anybody knows Eeyore is your long suffering companion.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:49 am
“Long suffering companion”
Did you ever read the AA Milne Books John?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:49 am
Anarchist, it’s not an obsession. I am pointing to reality of people that in fact, do project when they think they are being intellectual.
Most people are actually projecting their own emotions and thoughts on precise words - and end up being fools.
Anyone who projects their own fantasies in their mind upon someone’s words is an irrational person.
It’s the basis of philosophy. The philosophy that seeks truth.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:50 am
I believe I am MWW’s long suffering companion.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:51 am
But then, I’m not anybody who is anybody. I’m just me.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:52 am
Kennedy,
If you *know* who Eeyore is already… why are you going through this process of asking to find out?
Tell me John, when you poked your nose in over at Angry’s blog… were you *honestly* asking me that question too?
Did you know that the Blank Out Times, Edward T Bear was me, when you asked?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:57 am
Unless he had absolute evidence, he did not *know*. It was only a strong suspicion.
I’m off to bed.
John, would you be so kind to have Lynette respond to my comment on my blog to her comment? I’m quite interested to know what the fuck he/she was trying to say.
And please feel free to give me a call in about ten hours or so to confirm my own identity, and to discuss the validity of the posts to my blog, that they have all been written by me.
But whatever.. please tell Lynette I’d love for her to respond to the comments that she has apparently participated in, so that I may presume that she is not always a thinker of insane thoughts.
Good night all.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 3:58 am
And by the way… Where did “Dick Freely” end up in all this?
Or Kipawa Condor?
And indedd, I do find it strange… that lung has had nothing to say about all this.
I thought that lung would like Winnie the Pooh.
Or that “future lung” would…
Or “Million of Lungs”…
or “Millions of Millions of Lungs”
*sigh*
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 6:37 am
“Stop Meaghan, I’m begging you. Nobody wants to hear the story about your “clump of meat” again.” JTK
Hmmmmm to paraphrase Lynette
Link
“At least *I* didn’t refer to a “pornslut’s little snotmonster as a *cunt dropping*. Now that would have been rude.”
I just love the your *standards* John.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 8:19 am
>>Would my keeping every last cent of the taxes that are extracted from me really reduce the amount of government coercion I experience? By how much?
Yes, by the amount of tax money you didn’t give the goverment minus the amount of hassle you had to put up with for not giving them the money. :-)
The trick here is finding a way to decrease the ability of the State to hassle you when you don’t pay. This isn’t a collective action problem: it’s a technological and business problem.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 8:21 am
Ian Scott,
Not all of them.
My guess is it’s this thing called the Internet.
Wait, don’t you want some Kool-Aid? We made it ourselves…
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 8:27 am
TJ,
That sums to a negative number at some point.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 4:51 pm
>>That sums to a negative number at some point.
In the current environment, yes. Getting the level of taxation (and thus the size of the state) below that point requires either dealing with the collective action problem or advancing tax avoidance technology/cleverness. The first strategy — “If we all stop paying together the Machine will collapse” — doesn’t work very well, since few are really eager to be made examples of, and the rest learn quickly from the few examples. The second strategy — “What the State can’t find it can’t seize”, “I’m sorry, all my assets and business belong to an offshore corporation”, etc. — seems much more promising.
Again, the key is making paying less in taxes “easy, safe, and fun” for the general population. This isn’t a simple problem, but it should allow us to bypass the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 8:49 pm
What the fuck is going on?
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 9:39 pm
What the fuck is going on?
Beats the heck out of me. It looks like Kennedy, Lynette, Billy Beck, Meaghan, and Ian Scott are all having some kind of all-out slug-o-fest on the blog.
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 10:01 pm
Yeah, everyone just kinda went apeshit all at once.
Hey, anyone wanna talk about practical strategies for advancing personal liberty? :-)
August 20th, 2005 at Aug 20, 05 | 10:22 pm
You guys are *so* new.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 5:44 am
Thanks for the offer of the Kool Aid, Mr. Lopez. But I’ll pass. I don’t like to associate with folks who seem to just want to “win” a debate, or publish chat conversations, or write idiotic things.
I’m still waiting for Lynette to respond to my question regarding her comment on my blog. I’ll drink my own Kool Aid while I wait.
And then there is this John person. He seems more interested in the “author” of a post, than he is in the content of it. Now that is intellectual honesty, huh? Nothing like trying to shoot the messenger because you don’t like him/her, and then ignoring the message.
But probably to John’s disapointment, his suspicions are absolutely and totally incorrect about my blog. Although I have not ruled out having MWW as a co-blogger. Negotiations continue, as they continue with others that have nothing to do with MWW.
The negotiations are going slow because I have to figure out if I can migrate my bblog to some other software, without losing all of my 18 months of posts, to a better blog software.
So project and try to “think” all you want about me. In the meantime, I think this blog is pretty silly - and thus far with my reading of the contributors comments on my own blog, well.. it’s led me to my own judgements of the rationality of this Kennedy and Lynette person.
I do of course, reserve judgement - and am awaiting their respective responses to my own comments in response to theirs.
Especially this Lynette person. I have no fucking clue what she was going on about in her very first comment on my blog about something being to stupid for tears. I dunno.. maybe I just help to motivate the worst in people.. but that’s good, you know? It’s all information!
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 1:07 pm
Nice. Attack each other instead of the state. “Not Reason” does seem a fitting epithet for this place.
Bingo, anarchist.
The statists love these distractions while grabbing everyone by the shorthairs.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 1:46 pm
Oh god, did I forget about The Cause?
Look, I have a personal interest in this but there are issues here that should be of some general interest.
One of the things we’re talking about here is suicide as political action: “Well, what the motherfuck do you think it’s ever going to *take*?”
I think it’s going to take something other than Billy’s self-immolation on the steps of the capitol.
Meaghan would like Billy’s contemplation of such action to be above criticism but it’s simply not.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 3:12 pm
Kate:Busy night for some folks.
Sean:I did something more important with my time this week. I took pictures of Cow Boobies.
Kate: Yeah, but if they had been drunk cows rolled in honey and nuts, and dancing around in the pasture screaming “You’re projecting your emotions you cunt dropping!”, don’t tell me you wouldn’t have watched….
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 5:50 pm
From email:
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 9:37 pm
Ian Scott,
“You-all can protect your delicate sensibilities by turning the fuck away.” — Cy Tolliver, Deadwood
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 9:45 pm
TJ,
OK, I’ll go:
“Don’t light yourself on fire”.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 10:49 pm
Sabotta, as usual, was prescient.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 10:52 pm
Another issue is the idea that free-market types ought not criticize one anothers’ actions or plans. “Attack the state, not each other”.
I’ll tell you-all straight up: no one’s doing me a favor if they let me get away with being wrong. Movement types may well have different priorities, but my primary concern is me.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:13 pm
“Meaghan would like Billy’s contemplation of such action to be above criticism but it’s simply not.”
If Billy posted that he was thinking about heading off to Alaska, and killing a bunch of Eskimos and making “Eskimo Chops” out of them… I *would* find that objectionable and criticize.
The amazing thing is you don’t understand how what he is talking about, is taking an action that would *prevent* him from doing the above.
Think about it.
Man *qua* Man.
There are worse things than dying.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:32 pm
There’s gotta be an easier way to keep from killing eskimos.
[Beck should obviously not be held responsible for Meaghan’s crack brained explanations.]
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:34 pm
“Don’t light yourself on fire”.
Don’t Kill and Eat Eskimos.
Killing and Eating Other Eskimos To Keep Yourself alive, is *not* good.
Don’t be a cannibal.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:37 pm
“There’s gotta be an easier way to keep from killing eskimos.”
YES!
So really,what you’re arguing about at this point is what?
The level of pain involved… the degree of enslavement that Billy should put up with of himself, or the enslavement of others that he refuses to engage in…
And *you* would claim to know better than *him* what he has a tolerance for?
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:39 pm
Are you cannibalizing Eskimos by not killing yourself Meaghan?
Let those Eskimos be!
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:41 pm
[Beck should obviously not be held responsible for Meaghan’s crack brained explanations.]
You never spent any time on the “Eating Nanook” Thread, did you Kennedy?
Go read it. If I am not mistaken.. Billy objected to it, in so far as it appeared to be another “prisoner’s dilemna”, but he did partipate I believe on the terms that it was a good example for shaking some people up into laying out “their” principles, ethics and thoughts about life man qua man.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:42 pm
“Are you cannibalizing Eskimos by not killing yourself Meaghan?” Let those Eskimos be!”
I don’t have to pay any kind of taxes John, except the sales taxes.. (but back on the reserve.. not even then)I’m exempt.
It’s the Indian Act.
Billy is *not* in my situation.
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:46 pm
Oh I have one quick question:
Why are you, Lopez, Sabotta, and Lynette, all fired up on this “crusade” against Billy Beck?
Aren’t you people being “boring”, “whiney”, snotty little busy-bodies by doing this?
What is with you *crusaders* anyways?
August 21st, 2005 at Aug 21, 05 | 11:53 pm
There’s no crusade against Billy.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 12:01 am
Especially: Starlet Inspection.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 12:04 am
For any *non crusaders*, something that’s been swirling in email this past few days.. I’ve proposed a “Great Feast of Ostentatious Consumption fete” for 11/27 this year:
… hammering out details on whether it will be that date or if not, perhaps shortly around Billy’s 50th. Location TBA — It will either be in Florida, Seattle, or New York:
Possible guests, including all refugees from the ACECW, American Liberty, HPO, and APO days. Possible guest appearance by Mr.Moriarty. As soon as Billy’s back from Tokyo, he’ll have a better idea about how we can work this out.
Anybody who immediately stops posting this hyterical *shit* about their *crusade* against Billy, is welcome to email me to express their interest in attending.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 12:08 am
How is paying taxes cannibalism?
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 12:11 am
First tell me this: Will there be cake?
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 12:12 am
Kennedy writes after the announcement of the OFGC Party 11/27
“How is paying taxes cannibalism?”
Ok.. John, I’ll take that to be your “RSVP non”.
Thank you kindly.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 12:32 am
Okay, but again, what does paying taxes have to do with cannibalism?
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 12:41 am
50th birthday party! Are you out of your mind?
Meaghan, do you know how many candles that is???
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 2:21 am
>>”Don’t light yourself on fire”.
An excellent move (usually). I can understand the whole terminal illness self-immolation thing, but prior to that the smart tactical move is usually to allocate more resources to life extension.
But hey, it’s Billy’s ass. He can do what he wants with it.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 2:54 am
“But hey, it’s Billy’s ass. He can do what he wants with it.”
Bingo.
Give the man a Kewpie doll!
Anyways, back to “self-immolation”
We’ve been setting up a long-list of those interested in attending the celebration of the life of an exemplary human being, on Nov 27th of this year… some of the Canadians are lobbying hard for a Canadian city, since then we could also enjoy attendance from “The Prince of Pot”, Marc Emery.
And I honestly don’t know anybody who knows how to party as well as Marc Emery, but I am betting Billy can give the man a run for his money.
Also this is where Moriarty is based out of and we could probably get one of the Jazz Bars he plays at in the city to let us book the place, so Michael could tinkle the ivories a bit with his Jazz Trio,
Logistically I’m familiar with the city enough to set up some things there that couldn’t happen elsewhere.
I’ll take your little crack about 50 Candles as your “RSVP non” too Lynette.
Thanks.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 4:25 pm
What do you mean by “crusade”?
Are we?
Why don’t you tell me, eh?
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 4:28 pm
“Are we?”
Aren’t you?
See… everybody can play that *game*.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 5:17 pm
I’m not on any sort of “crusade”, and I judge that Warren and Kennedy aren’t on one, either. Why do you imply that I’m on a crusade, Meaghan?
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 5:39 pm
Lopez,
Well… It’s all a matter of perception isn’t it? I see how you clowns work your ethics out on this.
Fighting Government… stupid.
Attacking Billy for resisting government… smart.
Isn’t that how you “Prudent Predator/ game-theory/ prisoner’s dilemna” types assess your own ethics on these things?
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 5:50 pm
You could simplify matters by providing definitions for your smear-terms, but I can see that that wouldn’t exactly help you out.
As far as you know.
I don’t understand the premises, there, Meaghan.
Why do you continue to imply such transparent nonsense? Are you trusting that inlookers can’t read, or what?
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 5:59 pm
“I don’t understand the premises, there, Meaghan.”
I can’t help you with that Lopez.
If you aren’t one of the “prisoner’s dilemna” types… and you do actually understand why it is that respecting the rights of other human beings is how a human being should live… feel free to speak up… anytime.
My impression has been that you went right off the rails with the No Treasonites, the minute that you latched onto Kennedy’s nonsense, instead of dealing with the Is/Ought extrapolation.
Feel free to correct me.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 6:03 pm
Have you explained it to David Friedman yet? How about Patri?
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 6:04 pm
No prob: Assumption Correction Assumption.
August 22nd, 2005 at Aug 22, 05 | 6:19 pm
Lopez: You might want to head over here:
Link
[ Edit: Code your links or use tinyurl.com. JL ]
August 23rd, 2005 at Aug 23, 05 | 12:38 pm
Ayn Rand:
From the Introduction to the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition of The Fountainhead.
November 26th, 2005 at Nov 26, 05 | 1:56 pm
Beck recently quoted himself from eight years ago, referring to thoughts of suicide:
He also writes:
Beck pays taxes like sales tax. He doesn’t say no every time, sometimes he pays the ransom.
When he’s going to a gig overseas and they ask him for his government papers he doesn’t always stare them down and refuse - sometimes he produces his passport.
And he lives under the umbrella of those who pay ransom for the property he lives on.
None of these things are an offense against anyone, but they demonstrate that Beck himself judges it’s better to get on with his life than to refuse to pay ransom or refuse to jump through some hoops for the state.
The food he pays ransom for is no illusion. The ransomed home he lives in is no illusion. The gigs he uses a passport for are no illusion. And if he paid ransom to get on with his career that wouldn’t be an illusion either. It would be the production of values.
November 26th, 2005 at Nov 26, 05 | 5:26 pm
It follows that refusing to pay it at all represents a loss of value. But on what basis can these different values be weighed? If doing X accrues benefit to a man, but also benefit to those despised by that man, then can we condemn him for refusing to do X no matter how the two values compare?
Or as one philosopher much respected around here said:
It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if gives it no thought, not to give practically his support.
November 26th, 2005 at Nov 26, 05 | 6:53 pm
It’s up to the individual. But I suggest that one should generally derive pleasure and happiness from decisions one makes in one’s best interest. If refuseniks like Beck were happy with the results of their decisions I’d have no argument with them.
Where have I condemned any such person? I explicitly said his actions are no offense against others.
But one can err in arranging one’s hierarchy of values and harm oneself. I’m arguing that Beck does just that and encourages others in the same error.
Clearly I disagree with Thoreau on this if paying ransom counts as practical support. But then the various tax payments Beck does pay would be offenses.
What if you paid every tax levied upon you but took advantage of state benefits so that you were a net liability to the state - benefits you extract were worth more to you (and the state) than the amount of money extracted from you?
Or what if you paid all your taxes and then invested what you had left in ways that made you a net liability to the state? In one job I worked to provide people with ways to reduce their tax payments. I made good money doing that, and the result was that far more money was diverted away from the state than I ever paid in taxes.
Is one practically supporting the state in such cases?
November 26th, 2005 at Nov 26, 05 | 9:17 pm
JTK:
That’s an argument for going to work for the Post Office. Not that that’s a crime.
In any case, taking advantage of state benefits can be dangerous for the individual in that they can become hooked on them. People who count on Social Security being there for them, for instance, may end up a little disappointed.
Stefan:
I would argue instead that an individual has no duty to resist coercion that’s brought against him. You could make the argument that every time an individual complies with a demand for identification documents he’s giving practical support to the state, too. But Beck doesn’t have the obligation to go down swinging when some grade-school dropout demands his passport.
Given that there aren’t any frontiers to run away into any more (How would Thoreau’s squatting on Walden pond go these days?), what’s the best course of action for an individual to take? Al Swearengen’s rhetorical question answers that:
What made you think every wrong had a remedy, Wu? Did you come to camp for justice or to make your fucking way?
November 27th, 2005 at Nov 27, 05 | 2:07 pm
Lopez.
Beer and donuts are dangerous that way too.
It’s dangerous to get hooked on your job or your girlfriend.
Danger management is a big part of life.
November 27th, 2006 at Nov 27, 06 | 9:33 pm
Of some relevance:
November 28th, 2006 at Nov 28, 06 | 5:17 pm
Yeah, I kind of wondered about that. Seems a little rude for the media to ignore a guy setting himself on fire.
December 5th, 2006 at Dec 05, 06 | 7:30 pm
“Protester Immolation Virtually Unnoticed” — The Onion and the Associated Press inch closer.