12 votes

David Gergen of CNN says people are not forced to pay taxes.

David Gergen, CNN TV commentator objects to Jan's characterization of redistribution of wealth as some people being forced through taxes to pay for other people's goods or services. Gergen says that he and others are not forced to pay taxes. However, ultimately he has to admit that he and others are forced to pay taxes. Watch Jan make him walk back his statement. Unfortunately, because this contradiction is deep in his mind he will continue to revert to his original idea in the rest of the interview so don't miss the next chapters. Part two

http://youtu.be/DVuE0Qe3F3g

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gergen is the poster boy for an elitist socialist scumbag.

You little people need to be made to pay so that the elitist scumbags can feel good about themselves. And they say --screw your Constitution , we will rule you.

The day will come , and I hope I`m still breathing to see it, If not have fun you young liberty minded people.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

Gergen is the poster boy for an elitist socialist scumbag.

You little people need to be made to pay so that the elitist scumbags can feel good about themselves. And they say --screw your Constitution , we will rule you.

The day will come , and I hope I`m still breathing to see it, If not have fun you young liberty minded people.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

These scumbag traitors still

Try with their same old lie. GURKIN listen up the gig is up we know about the Federal Reserve Bank corp. owned by Rothschild and their False compounding national debt ponzi scheem with the IRS Gistopo, extorted theft control mechanism.

Yah its all volentary YOU MUST SIGN THE PAPER, its completely you choice, Sign or be put into a cell like an animal.

sovereign

David Gergen@ Bohemian Grove

Amazing gotcha by Alex Jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-job9wwKPM

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

What a buffoon

Listen to Michael Steele's comments on the topic. It's sheer idiocy. The fact is that if you don't pay your taxes, you will go to jail. That's not much of a choice. Eat these nails, or I'll blow your brains out with a shotgun! I mean, technically a choice exists, but it's an unnatural choice, because you are choosing to do something unpleasant under threat of a more unpleasant outcome.

Survival instinct dictates that people don't want to die or go to prison. If either of those choices are the only other option, then a choice really doesn't exist.

"Forced to pay"

I was behind on income taxes once, and nobody came at me with a gun; they simply made my bank balance disappear.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Nobody is forced to pay taxes

Nobody is forced to pay taxes like nobody is forced to live outside the walls of a penitentiary.

don't pay your taxes and I

don't pay your taxes and I gaurantee you some nice IRS agent with a gun will show up to find out why you havn't paid.. better yet ask Nicolas Cage why he just paid 6.25 million to the IRS and still ows 7 million more.. I suppose he was'nt forced to pay either. Another very stupid post.. As I said before, your crap is getting old.

Next Blade movie

guaranteed to have IRS vampires

Actually you do have the

Actually you do have the choice between paying taxes or not paying your taxes. Of course, you go to jail if you don't pay them but you still have the option. :D

Speaking just ideologically (without personal inference)

The choice of conceding to tyranny = cowardly rationalization

Yeah right!

Maybe that's what everyone needs to do, stop paying taxes in every aspect possible! Then we will see if it's forced or not!

It really depends on your

It really depends on your definition of force. If you want to work in the US, then you have to pay taxes. The option of working in the US is the choice you make.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

.

1) It really depends on your definition of force

Using force against the will of the innocent = coercion, which is unethical

2) If you want to work in the US, then you have to pay taxes

Disagreement = the axiom of self-governance precludes codified legal script; an individual can equally perform valuable functions without written mandate

3) The option of working in the US is the choice you make

Disagreement = a newborn individual makes no conscientious decision as to their native country. To then impose taxation on the human need for survival is an immoral form of subjugation

"Using force against the will

"Using force against the will of the innocent = coercion, which is unethical"

What is your definition of force? What is your definition of will? What is your definition of innocence? Forcing someone to conform to your definitions of the above is in itself coercion....

If a hospital "convines" a mental retard to give up his organs for donation, is that fair coercion or fraud?

Is it the use of coercion to force someone NOT to murder someone else?

"Disagreement = the axiom of self-governance precludes codified legal script; an individual can equally perform valuable functions without written mandate"

Unless your very existence is in fact a use of force. Which, it actually is.

3) The option of working in the US is the choice you make

"a newborn individual makes no conscientious decision as to their native country."

So then sue one's parents for choosing to bring you into this world.

"To then impose taxation on the human need for survival is an immoral form of subjugation"

So we can tax people who are making way more than they need to survive, then?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

.

1) What is your definition of force?

Clearly our discussion is becoming theoretical, but I would define it as neutrally 'compactive' energy

2) What is your definition of will?

I would define it as free autonomy, endowed from a virtual/(spiritual) Creator

3) What is your definition of innocence?

Distilled conscience

4) Forcing someone to conform to your definitions of the above is in itself coercion....

False = you are free to disagree in our discussion without the threat of violence

5) If a hospital "convines" a mental retard to give up his organs for donation, is that fair coercion or fraud?

I would firstly argue that cases of mental retardation are idiosyncratic when assuming various degrees of intellectual impairment.

Secondly having defined [below] coercion as unethical force which violates innocence, I do not accept it as 'fair'.

Thirdly if 'convinces' (assuming the correct term) is in parentheses so as to imply deception (~fraud), then it remains an unethical practice.

Otherwise, I see persuasion where 2 parties can volitionally agree to legitimize a public contract as an acceptable form of exchange

6) Is it the use of coercion to force someone NOT to murder someone else?

If the intent to injure is expressed, then prohibiting an individual from doing so is ethical; otherwise individuals are intrinsically free to commit ethical or unethical acts

7) Unless your very existence is in fact a use of force. Which, it actually is

I do not see the logic of that argument. Please explain

8) ..So then sue one's parents for choosing to bring you into this world

Reproduction is a birthright to all life. I therefore discount your intimation

9) So we can tax people who are making way more than they need to survive, then?

Firstly, I do not see prosperity as being a crime.

Secondly, I would refuse to participate ("we can") because in my view, taxation is unethical

You can just leave if an

You can just leave if an armed gang ever takes over your home.

/sarcasm

Not really a fair comparison.

Not really a fair comparison. You do not "own" the space in which you do business. In fact, you really do not own anything, except maybe your own body. Property itself is a state-concept...property only exists when there is a system in place where that property ownership is honored and codified.

And, of course, the "take over" has already happen. You bought the house with the armed gang in it and are now complaining about it.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

.

1) You do not "own" the space in which you do business

Partial disagreement = space is indeed free however once value is created by conscientious endeavor (building a house or commercial shop), it is unethical to steal another individual's means

2) In fact, you really do not own anything, except maybe your own body

Disagreement = I would argue 6 principles by which an individual may invest value and subsequently self-govern
-property
-agency (monetary currency)
-corporality (one's body)
-sovereignty (right of travel)
-philosophy (free thought)
-spirituality (freedom of religion)

3) Property itself is a state-concept...property only exists when there is a system in place where that property ownership is honored and codified

Disagreement = an individual may naturally conceive of invested means (a house, clothes, recreational items etc) in the absence of written dictates

4) And, of course, the "take over" has already happen. You bought the house with the armed gang in it and are now complaining about it

Disagreement with false presumption = I have purchased no house and made no conscientious agreement with any party of armed rogues such as the IRS. I am similarly opposed to anti-voluntary coercion and likewise am free to express it.

You are free to enslave yourself for example, but it is unethical when forcing others to participate

"You do not "own" the space

"You do not "own" the space in which you do business

Partial disagreement = space is indeed free however once value is created by conscientious endeavor (building a house or commercial shop), it is unethical to steal another individual's means"

How about the taking of the land in the first place? You don't own the land, so how can you build something there?

"Disagreement = I would argue 6 principles by which an individual may invest value and subsequently self-govern
-property
-agency (monetary currency)
-corporality (one's body)
-sovereignty (right of travel)
-philosophy (free thought)
-spirituality (freedom of religion)"

Firstly, your idea of value is itself arbitrary. Value exists in a society where value itself is defined. You may say that producing something creates value, but this itself is an assumption that is based on many assumptions.

Secondly, all those values are arbitrary. You have the right to travel, but that means nothing if someone is standing in your path and blocking it. You can have the right to your own body, but it means nothing if someone can kill you.

The protection of whatever rights you may concieve is itself not a right....

"Disagreement = an individual may naturally conceive of invested means (a house, clothes, recreational items etc) in the absence of written dictates"

He may concieve them or create them. Doesn't make them "his". They are only his by the rules that you are forcing on others.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

.

1) How about the taking of the land in the first place?

I see land as a naturally transferable means to create value (ex. food or shelter)

2) You don't own the land, so how can you build something there?

Assumption = if the land is not already claimed by another individual, it is an open means

3) Value exists in a society where value itself is defined

Partial disagreement = I see value as being deliberative individually. For example, one person may value a van Gogh painting, another not so. Further, value can be either subjective or objective when acknowledging divested means

4) You have the right to travel, but that means nothing if someone is standing in your path and blocking it

Partial agreement = possessing the ability to impose one's will does not justify the action

5) You can have the right to your own body, but it means nothing if someone can kill you

Disagreement = individuals are free to choose ethical/unethical acts. Accordingly under self-governance, my own body is even more meaningful because its nature is finite

6) The protection of whatever rights you may concieve is itself not a right....

Contradictory statement

7) He may concieve them or create them. Doesn't make them "his". They are only his by the rules that you are forcing on others

False = if an individual creates a sculpture from a piece of wood, he has violated no other individual's rights. If the other person however claims ownership over the sculpture/property without just exchange (including taxation over agency/currency), he commits an unethical act

According to the government, you don't even own your body

If you did, it would be legal to:

1) rent the use of it (prostitution)
2) ingest what you want (drug laws)
3) sell body parts (organ transplants)

Being born on a plantation, however, doesn't mean you are destined forever to be a slave.

Wow, We volunteered to be slaves with our vote. Stupid of us.

*

Free includes debt-free!

No, you can always leave. You

No, you can always leave. You can always go to another state, renounce your citizenship, etc. You don't have to work, no taxes!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

.

1) No, you can always leave. You can always go to another state, renounce your citizenship, etc

To be coerced into leaving one's native soil is a violation of individual sovereignty

2) You don't have to work, no taxes!

Partial agreement = an individual is free to labor or not. Conversely, I see the abolition of taxation as a primary step towards economic restoration and an integral component of volitional governance

.

"To be coerced into leaving one's native soil is a violation of individual sovereignty"

Individual sovereignty may exist, but the right to have your individual sovereignty recognized is not a right. Moreover, one can argue that you have the right to yourself and your body, but you have no right to live on a certain piece of land, etc.

"native soil" is also a strange term. It is something that only exists in the realm of government. At best, you could argue that your native soil is the area where you were born. How you can stretch that into a nation or state, or even a city, is absurd, since all those creations are creations of government.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You all just need to watch

the video called the John Birch Society Overview Of America on youtube and this debate your having would be answered..All these things your arguing about is what our founding fathers wrote in the constitution..WATCH IT!

Thanks

however I politely disagree having seen the video and although it is replete with persuasive cases, it does not adequately address these specific points [ie. the abolition of unethical taxation]

Maybe idiots who despise freedom should leave majority alone.

The taxes you love so much only pay the Interest on the debt.

And Congress just keeps on borrowing more.

Free includes debt-free!

WHEN the NWO is defeated, all of those at the top of the...

political establishment should be executed, preferably by hanging, as it is so graphic. However, media hacks such as Gergen, David Gregory, Chris Matthews, etc. should spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison, while a recording repeats incessantly that they are "free".

There is no NWO, that's just

There is no NWO, that's just crap the Bushies made up to scare you into dumping a boatload of money into defense.

As I remember Mr. Daddy Bush...

...on television many years ago with the statement out of his own mouth "it's time for a New World Order". I heard him say it! It's no secret. You can figure yourself what the evil man meant, but he did say it.

The evil man didn't mean

The evil man didn't mean anything near what I want. All he meant was a world dominated by America without Soviet counterbalance.

Sorry, but the only one-worlder out there is me.

I know we have our own beliefs!

But hey! At least we both agree Daddy Bush is evil!

Oh you mean this David Gergen?

The same guy that cremates his own care?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFoUZEjuNM

Now I know why he is such a caring tax paying citizen.

He's a friend of the fed.

I don't even want to click on this...

I don't even want to click on this because I know it will only be 1or 2 minutes. I understand the motivation for releasing 'soundbites' - but in these cases, isn't it better to put out the whole interview?!! I have not ONCE seen an entire interview from Jan. I think he does good work, but when do we get the whole interview?

CHECK OUT MY VIDEO! The views stopped overnight when for 'copyright' reasons, mobile viewing was disabled. I want to get to 8,000 - HELP by watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pTvjzHN3I

...but I welcome you to click on the link I posted below :)

...but I welcome you to click on the link I posted below :)

"Hi, David! You are naked!" (((Laughs!!!)))

Wisdom Strategies

Naaa..

I just wish Jan would actually publish his interviews. All I tried to say was that seeing 4+ parts to one interview where you can't find the whole thing seems a bit suspicious. If Jan had an interview with David Gergen, I'd like to see it start to finish...as well as the other interviews he's 'conducted'...

CHECK OUT MY VIDEO! The views stopped overnight when for 'copyright' reasons, mobile viewing was disabled. I want to get to 8,000 - HELP by watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pTvjzHN3I

David Gergen as in THE SATANIST David Gergen?

David Gergen as in THE SATANIST David Gergen?

This David Gergen? Hmmmm?

TRUTH & R[3]VOLUTION!

http://youtu.be/p-job9wwKPM

Wisdom Strategies

I truly believe

taxation is one of the most odious legal infractions devised by man; historically rationalized by well-meaning public figures and politicians over centuries, yet bulwarking institutional corruption and abuse.

Thank you, Mr. Helfeld for sharing these polemics where one day we can hopefully look proudly back on the abolition of such entrenched tyranny, while moving towards an apparatus of volitional governance

Peter Schiff's dad, Irwin, might beg to differ

His projected release date is October 7, 2016.

Bizarre - But Harry Reid says the same doublespeak

much more forcefully here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg
"Paying income tax in America is Voluntary"

Jan Helfeld's picture

Yes, and you can add Michael Steele

Yes, and you can add Michael Steele claiming that taxes are voluntary posted on this blog as well as several Congressmen on youtube/janhelfeld.

Jan Helfeld

Good job.

Interesting how people debate their own presumptions rather than the questions you ask.

I wonder if this "taxes are voluntary" was the result of market research into phrases the grassroots will buy.

Free includes debt-free!