Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Fwd: Aaron Russo - R.I.P.]

Expand Messages
  • terry12622000
    Well it is not a private corporation like Sears Holdings or Walmart but neither is it a government agency like the DEA or FCC nor is it a government
    Message 1 of 28 , Sep 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Well it is not a private corporation like Sears Holdings or Walmart
      but neither is it a government agency like the DEA or FCC nor is it
      a government corporation like the New York/ New Jersey Port Authority
      or the Tennessee Valley Authority it would be more like a
      government/ private corporation like Fannie Mae with notable
      exceptions being Federal Reserve stock is not traded publicly on the
      stock market, nor do I think the chairperson of the board of Fannie
      Mae is picked by the president, the president does pick the FEderal
      Reserve board chair but I don't think he appoints all of the board
      members in all the branches I think the member private banks have
      the largest say in picking most of the board.--- In
      LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Sheldon Richman" <sheldon@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Not to pile on, but the "Fed is a private corporation" angle in the
      > movie is also nonsense. I was disavow this movie every chance I get.
      > Sheldon
      >
      > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Fred C. Moulton"
      > <moulton@> wrote:
      > >
      > > On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 10:41 +0000, richard_a_garner wrote:
      > > > Sad - I was hoping he would get the LP noinaion after Browne,
      since,
      > > > whilst being less hardcore than Badnarick, his celebrity status
      would
      > > > have helped draw attentio to libertarianism.
      > > >
      > > > Richard
      > >
      > > Hearing about yet another death tends to be a sad occasion.
      However I
      > > will provide some of my thoughts on Russo as a potential
      candidate and
      > > on the movie.
      > >
      > > Well I am not involved in the LP but I will say that for the good
      of the
      > > libertarian movement it is probably best that Russo did not get
      the
      > > nomination. This is not criticism of him as a person rather that
      I do
      > > not think he would make a good candidate. As for his "celebrity
      status"
      > > I really question that. My guess is that you took 100,000 people
      at
      > > random in the US and asked them to identify Aaron Russo I would
      be very
      > > surprised if 5,000 could do it and it might be closer to 1,000
      than
      > > 5,000. As I said this is not a criticism of him as a person so
      do not
      > > try to pull the "poor man is dead and can not defend himself" BS.
      > >
      > > As for the movie, I think it sucks and is more a hindrance than a
      help
      > > for the libertarian movement.
      > >
      > > I saw it. It was shown in San Francisco at one point. I was not
      > > impressed at all. I remember more negative things about the movie
      than
      > > positive. The movie suffers from the problem of surrounding each
      good
      > > point with a bunch of wacko nonsense and conspiracy theories.
      Just for
      > > example it goes off on RFID chips and starts quoting Bible verses
      about
      > > being marked by the satanic forces. The movie contains a rehash
      of the
      > > "income tax is not legal" story and does not do a very good job
      of it.
      > > Several people in the broad libertarian movement have looked at a
      lot of
      > > this "income tax is not legal" argument and found it
      unpersuasive. This
      > > is not to defend the income tax rather that if you want to argue
      against
      > > the income tax then you need to very good solid arguments.
      Another
      > > problem with the movie is that is comes off sounding like much of
      it was
      > > written by right wing religious conservatives.
      > >
      > > Plus some of the promotion of the movie was rather misleading.
      When I
      > > first heard of the movie it was promoted as receiving a standing
      ovation
      > > at the Cannes Film Festival. Later I found a photo that was
      supposed to
      > > be of the showing and what I saw in the photo was a small group
      with a
      > > portable screen on a beach.
      > >
      > > Enough for now; I need to finish packing for a trip.
      > >
      > > Fred
      > >
      >
    • terry12622000
      No, its neither wholly government or wholly private but a mix, pointing out that is important strategey wise for many of the same reasons of your positive
      Message 2 of 28 , Sep 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        No, its neither wholly government or wholly private but a mix,
        pointing out that is important strategey wise for many of the same
        reasons of your positive review of " The Big Ripoff". It just that
        the private banking system is more a part of the poltical class
        system than big Tobbacco and General Motors but just like you and
        Carney are not calling for the federal government to produce and sell
        cigaretts and cars yet still show the outrageous rent seeking of big
        tobbacco and GM, it is possible to show the even larger rent seeking
        of banks without calling for the federal government to run the
        banking system directly.--- In
        LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Sheldon Richman" <sheldon@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > It's a government agency--take away the government and it's nothing.
        > The "Fed as a private company" line is not only wrong, it is also
        > strategically silly because it gives support to those, such as
        William
        > Greider, who want Congress to assume direct control of the Fed. That
        > would hardly be an improvement.
        >
        > On why the Fed is not a private company, see Bill Woolsey's
        > well-documented Liberty article here: http://tinyurl.com/2bas7c
        >
        > Sheldon
        >
        > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Olson" <jlolson@>
        wrote:
        > >
        > > How would you categorize the Fed?
        > >
        > > JO
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Sheldon Richman
        > > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:53 AM
        > > Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: [Fwd: Aaron Russo - R.I.P.]
        > >
        > >
        > > Not to pile on, but the "Fed is a private corporation" angle in
        the
        > > movie is also nonsense. I was disavow this movie every chance I
        get.
        > > Sheldon
        > >
        > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Fred C. Moulton"
        > > <moulton@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 10:41 +0000, richard_a_garner wrote:
        > > > > Sad - I was hoping he would get the LP noinaion after
        Browne,
        > since,
        > > > > whilst being less hardcore than Badnarick, his celebrity
        > status would
        > > > > have helped draw attentio to libertarianism.
        > > > >
        > > > > Richard
        > > >
        > > > Hearing about yet another death tends to be a sad occasion.
        > However I
        > > > will provide some of my thoughts on Russo as a potential
        > candidate and
        > > > on the movie.
        > > >
        > > > Well I am not involved in the LP but I will say that for the
        > good of the
        > > > libertarian movement it is probably best that Russo did not
        get the
        > > > nomination. This is not criticism of him as a person rather
        that
        > I do
        > > > not think he would make a good candidate. As for
        his "celebrity
        > status"
        > > > I really question that. My guess is that you took 100,000
        people at
        > > > random in the US and asked them to identify Aaron Russo I
        would
        > be very
        > > > surprised if 5,000 could do it and it might be closer to
        1,000 than
        > > > 5,000. As I said this is not a criticism of him as a person so
        > do not
        > > > try to pull the "poor man is dead and can not defend himself"
        BS.
        > > >
        > > > As for the movie, I think it sucks and is more a hindrance
        than
        > a help
        > > > for the libertarian movement.
        > > >
        > > > I saw it. It was shown in San Francisco at one point. I was
        not
        > > > impressed at all. I remember more negative things about the
        > movie than
        > > > positive. The movie suffers from the problem of surrounding
        each
        > good
        > > > point with a bunch of wacko nonsense and conspiracy theories.
        > Just for
        > > > example it goes off on RFID chips and starts quoting Bible
        > verses about
        > > > being marked by the satanic forces. The movie contains a
        rehash
        > of the
        > > > "income tax is not legal" story and does not do a very good
        job
        > of it.
        > > > Several people in the broad libertarian movement have looked
        at
        > a lot of
        > > > this "income tax is not legal" argument and found it
        > unpersuasive. This
        > > > is not to defend the income tax rather that if you want to
        argue
        > against
        > > > the income tax then you need to very good solid arguments.
        Another
        > > > problem with the movie is that is comes off sounding like much
        > of it was
        > > > written by right wing religious conservatives.
        > > >
        > > > Plus some of the promotion of the movie was rather misleading.
        > When I
        > > > first heard of the movie it was promoted as receiving a
        standing
        > ovation
        > > > at the Cannes Film Festival. Later I found a photo that was
        > supposed to
        > > > be of the showing and what I saw in the photo was a small
        group
        > with a
        > > > portable screen on a beach.
        > > >
        > > > Enough for now; I need to finish packing for a trip.
        > > >
        > > > Fred
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • terry12622000
        a very small number of cases have been won in crimnal court and it appears 1 was in state court of Illinois maybe that state has an income tax and maybe the
        Message 3 of 28 , Sep 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          a very small number of cases have been won in crimnal court and it
          appears 1 was in state court of Illinois maybe that state has an
          income tax and maybe the state income tax is tied to a percentage of
          an individuals federal income tax. Russo said on the Prison Planet/
          Google video that he advises people to pay their income tax because
          the governments has guns like the Mafia they can hurt you they can
          make your life miserable if you don't pay. He said when he had a club
          in Chicago back in the 60s he had to pay the cops 2,000 a month to
          stay in business even though legally he did not have to. I think it
          would have been best if he had included that info and warning in
          Freedom to Facism not only in the begining of the movie but at the
          end and 2 are 3 places in between.--- In
          LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "dan_ust" <dan_ust@...> wrote:
          >
          > I've heard of some sort of court case, but what about all the tax
          > resisters in jail? I also have a friend, Dave, who used to handle
          > tax cases like this and he told me he had a hard time keeping
          people
          > out of jail. (Dave is a libertarian and practices law now in AZ.)
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Dan
          >
          > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Olson" <jlolson@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > My understanding is that some individuals -- including one
          lawyer --
          > have won jury cases based on that argument ("show me the law"), so
          I
          > don't think the "quickly crushed" claim is quite right.
          > >
          > > JO
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Dan Ust
          > > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:05 AM
          > > Subject: Taxes: legal or no/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re:
          [Fwd:
          > Aaron Russo - R.I.P.]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > I'm not sure if it's a "decent marker for irrational opposition
          > to the income tax," but I agree with the rest of your comments.
          > >
          > > I'd rather make the moral and economic cases against taxation
          in
          > general than some esoteric one against the federal income tax. I
          > feel if you win someone on the moral, usually the rest doesn't
          matter
          > anyway.
          > >
          > > Regards,
          > >
          > > Dan
          > >
          > > MikeHolmesTX@ wrote:
          > > In a message dated 8/27/2007 9:52:34 AM Central Daylight
          Time,
          > dan_ust@ writes:
          > >
          > >
          > > I also think it's a bit silly that people still believe
          that
          > income taxation is not legal. (And this is not an argument for the
          > income tax, but against the law itself.) Would that it weren't and
          > that one could seriously litigate and have a fair chance of winning
          > in court!
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yet, thousands of not millions of people continue to make that
          > argument.
          > >
          > > A few try to get that argument into court but are nearly always
          > thwarted by even more laws and rulings banning the questioning of
          the
          > legality of the income tax in a court. But that doesn't stop the
          > believers.
          > >
          > > They focus on the idea of "legality" rather than morality or
          > fairness or whatever.
          > >
          > > They blank out when asked what would happen if they won in
          court
          > (the income tax was ruled illegal) and the Congress, etc. then
          would
          > quickly legalize it. So even if they were somehow proven correct it
          > would be a short lived and meaningless victory.
          > >
          > > On the one hand, this fiction of income tax illegality does
          > energize opponents of the income tax. On the other hand, it is a
          bad
          > and foolish argument doomed to failure. Anyone who actually acts on
          > that belief is quickly crushed.
          > >
          > > So, at best, this "illegality" argument is a decent marker for
          > irrational opposition to the income tax.
          > >
          > > MH
          >
        • terry12622000
          Well not all buy the moral and economic reasons against all taxes but they may buy the arguments that the federal government has unnecessarily being lying to
          Message 4 of 28 , Sep 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Well not all buy the moral and economic reasons against all taxes but
            they may buy the arguments that the federal government has
            unnecessarily being lying to most of us about the constitutional
            valdity of the federal personal income tax and why a personal federal
            income tax is not necessary to operate the federal government and why
            there is no need for a replacement.--- In
            LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ust <dan_ust@...> wrote:
            >
            > I'm not sure if it's a "decent marker for irrational opposition to
            the income tax," but I agree with the rest of your comments.
            >
            > I'd rather make the moral and economic cases against taxation in
            general than some esoteric one against the federal income tax. I
            feel if you win someone on the moral, usually the rest doesn't matter
            anyway.
            >
            > Regards,
            >
            > Dan
            >
            > MikeHolmesTX@... wrote:
            > In a message dated 8/27/2007 9:52:34 AM Central Daylight Time,
            dan_ust@... writes:
            >
            > I also think it's a bit silly that people still believe that
            income taxation is not legal. (And this is not an argument for the
            income tax, but against the law itself.) Would that it weren't and
            that one could seriously litigate and have a fair chance of winning
            in court!
            >
            >
            >
            > Yet, thousands of not millions of people continue to make that
            argument.
            >
            > A few try to get that argument into court but are nearly always
            thwarted by even more laws and rulings banning the questioning of the
            legality of the income tax in a court. But that doesn't stop the
            believers.
            >
            > They focus on the idea of "legality" rather than morality or
            fairness or whatever.
            >
            > They blank out when asked what would happen if they won in court
            (the income tax was ruled illegal) and the Congress, etc. then would
            quickly legalize it. So even if they were somehow proven correct it
            would be a short lived and meaningless victory.
            >
            > On the one hand, this fiction of income tax illegality does
            energize opponents of the income tax. On the other hand, it is a bad
            and foolish argument doomed to failure. Anyone who actually acts on
            that belief is quickly crushed.
            >
            > So, at best, this "illegality" argument is a decent marker for
            irrational opposition to the income tax.
            >
            > MH
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from
            someone who knows.
            > Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
            >
          • terry12622000
            One fact pointed out in Freedom to Fascism is no longer true and may have not been true when the moview first came out. The federal corporate income tax use to
            Message 5 of 28 , Sep 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              One fact pointed out in Freedom to Fascism is no longer true and may
              have not been true when the moview first came out. The federal
              corporate income tax use to be enough to cover the DOD budget but it
              will not even cover half now although it would be enough to cover the
              entire constitutional federal budget if the federal government
              either renegotiated the federal debt, passed the debt to the states
              or reputiated the debt. In my view it would be better to do the
              second one and include the Social Security/ Medicare debt which
              techincally is not a constitutional federal debt unless a class
              action law suit is brought against the federal government plus I
              think it would be better to pass the VA debt to the
              states.
              A tax on gross corprate income probably would be far better
              that the crazy system today and maybe it should be a graduated tax.
              at a flat rate around 1.5% could bring in around 300 billion in
              revenue but maybe it would be better to have a graduated rate for
              example the first 10 million per year in gross corporate income tax
              would be exempt or maybe more, the Fotune 500 corporations bring in
              around half the business income both corporate and non corporate and
              all the 500 would be large cap corporations but a company with 10
              million or less in revenue is likely to be no more than a micro cap
              corporation and in most cases might be a nano cap corporation. --- In
              LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Fred C. Moulton" <moulton@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 10:41 +0000, richard_a_garner wrote:
              > > Sad - I was hoping he would get the LP noinaion after Browne,
              since,
              > > whilst being less hardcore than Badnarick, his celebrity status
              would
              > > have helped draw attentio to libertarianism.
              > >
              > > Richard
              >
              > Hearing about yet another death tends to be a sad occasion.
              However I
              > will provide some of my thoughts on Russo as a potential candidate
              and
              > on the movie.
              >
              > Well I am not involved in the LP but I will say that for the good
              of the
              > libertarian movement it is probably best that Russo did not get the
              > nomination. This is not criticism of him as a person rather that I
              do
              > not think he would make a good candidate. As for his "celebrity
              status"
              > I really question that. My guess is that you took 100,000 people at
              > random in the US and asked them to identify Aaron Russo I would be
              very
              > surprised if 5,000 could do it and it might be closer to 1,000 than
              > 5,000. As I said this is not a criticism of him as a person so do
              not
              > try to pull the "poor man is dead and can not defend himself" BS.
              >
              > As for the movie, I think it sucks and is more a hindrance than a
              help
              > for the libertarian movement.
              >
              > I saw it. It was shown in San Francisco at one point. I was not
              > impressed at all. I remember more negative things about the movie
              than
              > positive. The movie suffers from the problem of surrounding each
              good
              > point with a bunch of wacko nonsense and conspiracy theories. Just
              for
              > example it goes off on RFID chips and starts quoting Bible verses
              about
              > being marked by the satanic forces. The movie contains a rehash of
              the
              > "income tax is not legal" story and does not do a very good job of
              it.
              > Several people in the broad libertarian movement have looked at a
              lot of
              > this "income tax is not legal" argument and found it unpersuasive.
              This
              > is not to defend the income tax rather that if you want to argue
              against
              > the income tax then you need to very good solid arguments. Another
              > problem with the movie is that is comes off sounding like much of
              it was
              > written by right wing religious conservatives.
              >
              > Plus some of the promotion of the movie was rather misleading.
              When I
              > first heard of the movie it was promoted as receiving a standing
              ovation
              > at the Cannes Film Festival. Later I found a photo that was
              supposed to
              > be of the showing and what I saw in the photo was a small group
              with a
              > portable screen on a beach.
              >
              > Enough for now; I need to finish packing for a trip.
              >
              > Fred
              >
            • Kevin Carson
              ... I ve had more than a gutfull of such local authorities, so I know well what you re talking about. The regional airport was built here by an
              Message 6 of 28 , Sep 3, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On 8/29/07, Dan Ust <dan_ust@...> wrote:

                > While I agree that there's a nexus between the two, I still think the distinction is useful in certain contexts in the existing system.
                >
                > Perhaps Jeff is right that the Fed is peculiar in the realm of federal public agencies, though its upper echelons are appointed by the president. There are some similar things in other countries and on the local level in the US. On the latter, think "special improvement" or "business improvement" districts and some transit authorities. Some of these seem to have government appointees running basically bureaucracies that are not part of the rest of the government and might either be private or quasi-public. (I believe some parking authorities are like this: the top players are appointees, but the authority is basically "self-supporting" in that the parking fees pay for the whole thing and they end up, in some instances, making a "profit." The Fed is also, IIRC, like this. It doesn't literally take in money, but it counterfeits more money to pay its staff.)
                >

                I"ve had more than a gutfull of such local "authorities," so I know
                well what you're talking about. The regional airport was built here
                by an intergovernmental authority, created as an "emergency measure"
                by local governments with absolutely no prior public notice. Once
                created, the authority was legally immortal so long as any two of its
                seven member governments remained in it, and it had power--among other
                things--to condemn land. The authority was the project of the
                nominally private Northwest Arkansas Council, a "public service
                organization" made up mainly of representatives from Tyson, Wal-Mart
                and J.B. Hunt, whose "advisory" purpose was to lobby local government
                for more ambitious infrastructure projects. The Council lobbied
                behind the scenes for the authority, the local governments did in
                secret just as they were told, and once the project was officially
                launched you needed a score card to tell the local government players
                from the business ones.

                > Back to why I would prefer to keep the distinction. There are still basically private firms that operate in the context of the welfare state system and don't have much of an impact on how that context came up or continues.
                >

                True enough. There are even fairly large corporations in the more
                competitive sector that probably operate at a much larger than
                free-market scale thanks to centralization subsidies, but are still
                disadvantaged in some ways for the benefit of those at the "commanding
                heights." I'm thinking of the old NAM coalition, pretty much all the
                labor-intensive and domestic-oriented corporations aside from resource
                extraction and agribusiness. The oligopoly corps in banking and
                finance, high-tech and capital-intensive industry, on the other hand,
                are much more integrally connected to the state.

                > Regarding the aforementioned earl, one could ask how he or his ancestors acquired the land and what the tenants or their ancestors did to remain as tenants. (Also, IIRC, earls were servants of the king and officially his agents in a given area.) However, per Hoppe, wouldn't the Medieval society really be one of private governments -- i.e., where the ownership over the government was private as opposed to modern nation states where the ownership is allegedly public? (Tony might quibble, but Blair and Bush can't leave their offices and the assets of the state to their heirs. Surely, both might try to get family members in positions of power, but this isn't anything like the almost guaranteed inheritance under feudal or royal states.)
                >

                IMO the corporations centrally involved in the state capitalist system
                are private governments, backed up by the force of the official state.

                --
                Kevin Carson
                Mutualist.Org: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
                http://www.mutualist.org
                Mutualist Blog http://mutualist.blogspot.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.