Sometimes You Don't Need Context.

I would like to demonstrate a few things that might be called universally helpful statements.  I suppose the demonstration is best provided by challenging the reader to find contexts in which the following points are not helpful.

Sometimes a point is made that has applicability in nearly every context.  If someone requests the context, they are accidentally providing evidence that they would like to avoid acknowledging the point being made.

A specific peculiar element of the human psyche, often called "the ego," tends to make it difficult for a person to accept a correction (no matter how obvious it is) to their understanding.

When a person senses an unease with new information, it is often because it is convincing evidence that they harbor and identify with some kind of misunderstanding that the new information can correct.

A strong awareness and preparedness to present a second reason to do something often indicates that the first reason is problematic and that, since the second reason wasn't chosen as the first, it must be even more problematic and therefore it may be advisable not to do the thing that was being considered.

Sometimes we lie by remaining silent.

Nearly all useful statements are "universally applicable" when you modify them with the adverb "sometimes."

Coercive authority is a result of the fear of being violated and does more harm than good.

Non-coercive authority is a result of recognizing helpful knowledge in another and does more good than harm.

Taking responsibility for yourself is difficult but very rewarding.

If you imagine someone in any situation saying one of these things to you, you might enjoy what your imagination does with the scenario.

Warning for the Fed and Other Large Buyers of US Government Debt

The US taxpayer who doesn't have to be a US taxpayer is waking up.  Peter Hendrickson's website, losthorizons.com, provides ample evidence that the IRS has been respecting the constitutional limits written into the law (Title 26) for those patient and aware enough to proceed through the interactions with that haggled agency that are required to avoid paying taxes for which they aren't liable, or have refunded any monies erroneously collected.

A scant portion of Americans today understand that the US Income Tax applies only to those who exercise some kind of privilege granted by the federal government in their efforts to earn money.  This small vanguard of public financial discipline has been spreading its knowledge, however, and that means a shrinking base of revenue producers for the US government.  What does this mean for you?

Propaganda over the last several decades has led you to believe that the majority of American citizens are on the hook for the money due you through your investments in US treasuries and bonds.  Contrast that with the evidence provided on Hendrickson's website both of legal research demonstrating the nature of the situation and scans of checks written by the IRS to Americans who do not exercise any federal privilege.  The recipients of these checks were charged the tax as if they had exercised such privilege, showed that they had not, and demanded that the agency return the erroneously collected money.  The agency complies with the law.  Extrapolate that across the larger portion of Americans suffering from the economic crisis and the drain it continues to have.  As more and more people realize they are not on the hook for this debt, the pool of earners will shrink well below what can sustain payments owed to you.

You may find that the greater portion of what is owed you will be paid in freshly printed currency which will hyperinflate, or that the US government will simply repudiate the debt it owes you.

Your expectations cannot be met.  You have been warned.

The Missing "Frivolous" Argument

USC 26 6702(c) States:

(c) Listing of frivolous positions

The Secretary shall prescribe (and periodically revise) a list of positions which the Secretary has identified as being frivolous for purposes of this subsection. The Secretary shall not include in such list any position that the Secretary determines meets the requirement of section 6662 (d)(2)(B)(ii)(II).

This appears to be (Actually, Pete found the correct link for me, so...) Here is the "list of positions which the Secretary has identified as being frivolous," but there is one position that is missing.  It's my position, and if they would like to add it to the list, then I will have to admit that I no longer have a legal basis for refusing to support their criminal operations.  Here is my position, which I think would go under section B ("The Meaning of Income:  Taxable Income and Gross Income"):

"Taxable Income" can only mean what a person gets by exercising some kind of federal privilege, so those who exercise no such privilege are not liable for the tax.

[The following was added to this post after Mr. Hendrickson directed me to the information the IRS has provided regarding the word "privilege" in the actual list of frivolous positions.]

The closest position to mine that does appear says this:

(1) Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law, including arguments that:
...(g) Only persons who have contracted with the government by applying for a governmental privilege or benefit, such as holding a Social Security number, are subject to tax, and those who have contracted with the government may choose to revoke the contract at will.

What the IRS is saying is that this is an incorrect position, and so it must be.  Let's go so far as to assume that you really do have to apply in order to gain a federal privilege, but notice the "and" that I italicized.  Why is that chunk of text compounded into this frivolous position?  Would it not cover more cases without the addition of that conjunction and the text following it?  Perhaps those who have contracted with the government may not choose to revoke the contract at will.  Perhaps the position that holds that such one-sided abdication of contractual obligation is a legal option for those exercising federal privilege (whether applied for or not) is actually frivolous.  I would assume that it's immoral, at least, to unilaterally revoke a contract, so it's no small stretch to see that arguing in favor of such revocation would be frivolous.

[End of added material.]

Thanks to Pete Hendrickson's legal research on this subject, available at his website, http://losthorizons.com, for those interested in ending their financial support for the criminal endeavors of the US federal government.