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 have 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:

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 conveniently not specified], fails to mention that his employer or anyone in a decision making 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 resistance. 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 murmuring 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 brethren 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" <MCCLOSL@towers.com> 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 brethren" 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 rip-off 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 "rip-off 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 "rip-off artist" for teaching people how to live free?

Responding To Information #2
I'm a practicing anarcho-capitalist. I not only advocate anarcho-capitalism, I also live anarcho-capitalism and do business as an anarcho-capitalist. This is another way of saying I'm a "sovereign individual" and I'm involved with "sovereign businesses."

The safest way to be a practicing anarcho-capitalist is to tell as few people as possible that you operate that way. That tends to minimize the risk. Nevertheless, I believe that in my personal case, it's safe enough to shout to the world over the Internet that I'm a practicing anarcho-capitalist, and also to provide others with information and opportunities to become successful practicing anarcho-capitalists.

I believe that if the terrocrats (terrorist bureaucrats or coercive government agents) are to be defeated, it will come about as a result of a wide range of strategies and tactics. I welcome any strategy, tactic, or project that increases the freedom, power, and effectiveness of individuals and/or reduces the power and influence of terrocrats. I regard the practice of anarcho-capitalism as a powerful strategy because it can provide substantial rewards to individuals, while at the same time withdrawing support from terrocrats, particularly the financial support on which they so crucially depend.

Practicing anarcho-capitalism requires certain knowledge, skills, and methods -- particularly on how to organize your affairs to minimize the risk of terrocrat attacks. You may also need a few "tricks of the trade" so that, should terrocrats attack you, you can quickly demonstrate to them that it would be more productive for them to go after "easier targets." I call this practical knowledge, methods, and skills "Freedom Technology." Much of it is available to you free of charge at the Build Freedom Website. Freedom Technology could also be called "formulas for avoiding tyranny."

On 3/21/97 Attorney "Craig J. Bolton" <lawecon@swlink.net>wrote:

What I have in fact written is two things: (1) there are no formulas for costlessly avoiding tyranny by filing a document or muttering some magic words; and (2) there is a fundamental principle in economics called "the division of labor". This principle states that we are all better off specializing in one thing and buying the other things we want to consume.

Mr. Attorney is part of "the system." It's in his interest that "the system" be perpetuated. And he needs clients who are "subjects" of "the system." He specializes in "bankruptcy law" -- helping people escape their responsibilities? [In an anarcho-capitalist world "bankruptcy" might not provide relief to debtors.]

He uses arguments he regards as appropriate to achieve his purpose. Developing your thinking skills is an important aspect of learning to live free as an anarcho-capitalist. One of these thinking skills is to learn to recognize appropriate and inappropriate arguments. A key question: Who or what is this argument appropriate for? There are also standard forms of argument used to persuade. One such is the "straw man" argument. You introduce a point which is really irrelevant to the issue, but you clothe it so that hopefully your audience won't notice.

Let's examine lawyer argument #1, "(1) there are no formulas for costlessly avoiding tyranny by filing a document or muttering some magic words." Answer: So what?; Who says "there are no formulas for costlessly avoiding tyranny..." Mr. Attorney. But the naive reader will assume that Mr. Attorney's opponent has said the opposite of (1) or believes the opposite of (1).

(1) is an appropriate argument for a lawyer. It may not be appropriate for anyone else with different purposes.

It's similar to a doctor saying, "there are no costless ways of getting healthy... therefore you have to subscribe to medical insurance and come to me for health care." There are no costless ways for anything. The minimum cost is the time you spend on something. The "no costless ways" point is irrelevant -- the "straw man."

Whatever action you take has a cost and carries a risk, and may offer a potential benefit. It's up to each of us to choose actions which minimize cost and risk, while maximizing benefit.

The ruthless doctor doesn't want you to consider alternatives because he wants your money. He uses whatever argument he thinks appropriate to capture and keep you as a client.

A variation of argument (1) would be: There is no silver bullet. You shouldn't listen to Frederick Mann because he can't have a "silver bullet." You shouldn't buy a golf club because the manufacturer can't guarantee a hole-in-one every time you hit the ball! You shouldn't go to the doctor because he can't guarantee a cure.

And what do lawyers do? Answer: They file documents and mutter magic words! So I could argue that you should never go to a lawyer because "(1) there are no formulas for costlessly avoiding tyranny by filing a document or muttering some magic words."

Now let's look at lawyer argument #2, "(2) there is a fundamental principle in economics called "the division of labor". This principle states that we are all better off specializing in one thing and buying the other things we want to consume."

So the ruthless doctor says, "Don't spend time trying to educate yourself about healthy diet, exercise, etc. Just come to me when you feel bad, and I'll cure you. Division of labor, you know. I specialize in health; you must specialize in other things."

The "division of labor" argument here is a "straw man." It applies to organizing a factory. To some extent, specialization applies to what you do to qualify yourself for your career. But to what extent does it apply to life in general? Maybe, in some respects, it pays off to be a generalist.

Doctors depend for their livelihood on people being unhealthy. If everyone were perfectly healthy, most doctors would be out of a job. It's in the interest of doctors that people generally suffer poor health. (Interesting that doctors themselves are among the least healthy with the shortest life expectancy!)

It's in the doctor's interest that his clients be ignorant concerning what they need to do to maximize their health.

The same applies to many lawyers. The more ignorant the client, the more money the lawyer can make.

Maybe it's worthwhile for anybody who wants to be healthy and free to learn something about both health and law.

Could it be that, more than anything else, what prevents you from being free -- living and doing business as an anarcho-capitalist -- is "the law" -- more precisely, what you think of "the law" -- and of course, your relative ignorance of "the law" -- and your ignorance of Freedom Technology, the means to beat "the law."

Mr. Attorney wants you to be ignorant of "the law" so he can make more money off you. So he'll use an argument appropriate for him, like "division of labor."

To further strengthen their positions, both doctors and lawyers operate monopolies. They don't want anybody else to "muscle in on their action."

Guess which two "professions" are most notorious for exorbitant prices and questionable results?

All the Freedom Technology offered on this site is available free of charge for personal use.

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com