0 votes

If I Were President of the USA by Russell Means

well ron i think i have to share you now with russell!

http://www.republicoflako...




Comment viewing options

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

Ventura - Means 2012!

.................
Talk to someone new every day. You'll be surprised what you learn.

..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore

The Tax Quiz

Scenario: You have worked hard, practiced fiscal discipline, and managed to pay off your mortgage and free yourself of all unsecured debt. Unfortunately, accomplishing the above has resulted in very little or no savings accumulation. It is mid-season of a very harsh winter and national unemployment is at 16%, therefore, employment opportunities are scarce. At this time, one of the following life events occur: you are forced into retirement, become seriously ill and are unable to work, or you are layed off and no longer employed.

Question: Given the situation above, the inability to pay which of the following taxes is most likely to deprive you of your justly acquired property and put you and your family out in the street?

( ) A: The income tax
( ) B: The sales tax
( ) C: The property tax

Answer Key

A. No, not the income tax. Your nominal income is now zero in terms of incoming FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) and mandated witholding will likely cover any liability for the period you were working. Therefore, your incurred liability moving forward will be zero.

B. No, not the sales tax. Sales tax liability is incurred only when a sales transaction of a taxed item occurs. Fortunately, you can limit your consumption (tax exposure) through planning, resourcefulness, and hard work.

Activities such as growing a garden, canning and preserving produce, root-cellaring, and maintaining a small scale livestock enterprise with animals such as goats, rabbits, or chickens will provide much, if not all, of the food you may need. Even if you become ill, other family members may assist with these tasks. Additionally, you may barter from your surplus, or directly with your labor, for needed items such as tools or clothing.

If you own the land, and have a specialized talent or skill, you may also start a cottage industry or practice a right livlihood which will provide additional value to your local community. For example, If you farm, your neighbors may voluntarily opt to defend your property, because you provide a large portion of their food supply as well as your own.

C. CORRECT ANSWER! Failure to pay your local property tax will result in an immediate eviction of yourself and your family. Even if you are highly successful and produce a surplus on your land, the local authority will not accept barter items as means of payment; your justly acquired property will be forfeit. As a result, despite your hard work, you will be homeless and without resources to ensure yourself or your family's future survival.

Questions for further reflection:

In your own words, which tax do you feel is the most antithetical to individual liberty?

Which tax do you feel is the most unjust?

Many states may forego collection of sales or income tax, yet all states have a property tax. Why do you think this is the case?

If you had the power to eliminate only one of the above taxes, which would it be? Why?

_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.

I agree with you in principle, but...

..In arguing Property Tax vs. Income Tax, you are comparing two things that are BOTH totally unacceptable to the cause of Liberty.

You may as well say, "Which is worse--being shot in the chest with .45 ACP 230-grain hardball, or a .357 Magnum loaded with 158-grain jacketed hollowpoints? The correct answer is the .357, but it's almost splitting hairs, relatively speaking.

The power of taxation is the power to destroy. Both property taxes and income taxes should be abolished.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

True

Death by plague or death by cancer... agreed.

It's interesting though, if you research a bit, you'll find the property tax is by far the oldest tax. It's also very hostile to those self-reliant communities who choose to live off the land and limit their production to manual methods (like the Amish and Menonites). Non-participation is not an option.

_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.

Who's land?

Remember, the land belonged to people before the Amish otr the Menonites got there. How did they acquire it? Through bloody raid and war with the Indians? Through murdering others? Were they the first people there to plant a flag?

Who says it is "their land?" Who recognizes their claim?

If I go into Amishville with 10 of my friends and some automatic weapons, slaughter the people and then claim the land as my own, who takes me down and "lays down the law?"

Government must be paid for unfortunately. The barrel of a gun, aimed by a proper set of moral boundaries is what determines property rights.

Our government is corrupt, that does not mean the premises of Capitalist government are corrupt. I would say property taxes are the most applicable solution to the problem. Everyone who is benefiting from the system, even if passively, is taking up that cost. Case in point, cities with the fastest response times have high property taxes and low rates of crime.

Eric Hoffer

True

It is the government which grants you right of ownership.

You still own and are responsible for your property, but you're within that territory, and therefore you're paying the price for services of the city.

What do you mean by "own" property? I have my gun, I own that. I have my computer, and a nice desk, paid cash for all of those. We absolutely own our property. If you're talking about land, then no, in fact no one does. Even governments find their "ownership" taken over through wars, legal battles, etc. Did they really "own" it? Or was their inability to defend it proof that they held no actual ownership?

Ownership is that which you have the capability to defend. In a rational society of thinking men and women, this battlefield is held in the courts, which are paid for by property taxes. If you remove the taxes, you remove the courts, and we all devolve into a country of raiding rival gangs, raiding and shooting one another.

I'll quote a person from the anarchy thread best I can:

"It's hard to spur accumulation of capital when you're murdered as soon as you have anything worth owning."

Eric Hoffer

I agree

but Eric sort of set the tone for one vs the other. The property tax is just more unfair to people on fixed income.

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

Agreed

I'll absolutely agree that for persons on fixed income, property taxes are much more of an issue. The sliding scale of productivity isn't effected there, and not paying the property tax is much scarier than not being able to eat for a day unfortunately.

Although I hate to admit it, I'm more afraid of being put on a fixed income than I am of losing my house right now. Ugh, Obama presidency.

Eric Hoffer

Just

"Scenario: You have worked hard, practiced fiscal discipline, and managed to pay off your mortgage and free yourself of all unsecured debt. Unfortunately, accomplishing the above has resulted in very little or no savings accumulation. It is mid-season of a very harsh winter and national unemployment is at 16%, therefore, employment opportunities are scarce. At this time, one of the following life events occur: you are forced into retirement, become seriously ill and are unable to work, or you are layed off and no longer employed.

Question: Given the situation above, the inability to pay which of the following taxes is most likely to deprive you of your justly acquired property and put you and your family out in the street?"

How do you say, "tough cookies" in nicey nice talk?

If everyone calls up the police station and says, "Hey, we don't need cops in our neighborhood anymore, none of us can afford the property taxes." Do you honestly think your individual liberties will be better off? When every burglar and gang member in the town says, "Hey, there aren't any repercussions from robbing these guys... aw shucks, lets leave em alone, they're on hard times."

Really? Honestly? Living within the jurisdiction of a city, you have obligations as a member of that community. If you do not like this city, you are free to attempt to change the laws via your elected representatives or running for office yourself.

If you find yourself in this predicament, I recommend asking your family and friends for assistance in paying the property taxes.

"free yourself of all unsecured debt." This statement is incorrect. You still have a debt to the city for the protections and services rendered unto you. If you don't pay for your heat, they turn it off. There is NO WAY to turn off the police force and the fire department. By living in that jurisdiction, you agree, as a homeowner, to pay that bill.

A. The income tax, does not apply currently, as you have no income. However, if all those dollars which went to income tax instead were sitting in a bank account and compounding, do you really think that property taxes would be an issue? Figure 30% of your wages for all the prior years of work were returned to you, how many years of property tax would that account for?

Income tax is what leaves you with zero saving in the first place. It is not the immediate cause of them taking your house, but it is the cause of your not having enough money to pay those bills.

B. Sales tax, I agree, is a minor component. You could cut down on consuming to avoid these charges, and they only hurt you when you're buying something.

"For example, If you farm, your neighbors may voluntarily opt to defend your property, because you provide a large portion of their food supply as well as your own."

Sure, on a 1000-1 chance. Most likely, they'll yell at people in black garb and tell them to get out of here or I'm calling the cops, or they'll call you if someone is lurking, but the idea of them defending your property from armed assault is ludicrous. This example fails in the extreme when you move it to an urban setting. No one will protect your house because you knitted them a cap and mittens.

C. Yes, failure to pay will screw you. However, if you had the money in the first place, I'm assuming you'd be better off. If you've had such a high mortgage that you have no savings, you bought a house that was far beyond your means and are being punished accordingly. It's awful to say, but it's true. If you have friends and family, I suggest you throw yourself on the basis of their charity, or offer to do odd jobs to make that money up.

I again argue that income taxes are far more unjust, as they scale the punishment to your work. If I work to make 100,000 I pay 30,000 in income taxes (I'm shorting these numbers significantly) if I make 200,000, I'm paying at least 60, if not 100,000 in income tax. What does this do to my productive drive? The harder I work and the more I produce, the more I'm punished? Is this more fair?

Property taxes are near static and cost us nowhere near the amount of our income taxes throughout our lives. Only the punishment of not paying them is higher, and as I've been through court 6 times with the IRS, I'd argue that not paying your income tax is just as bad if not worse. They'll take the money straight from your employer's paycheck to you and you won't make your mortgage payments, watch how that goes.

I can shrug off my property taxes, but income taxes seriously limit my desire to produce. Don't punish me for working harder than the other boys.

Eric Hoffer

It's hard to say

just how many elderly people have been forced out of their homes because of that tax and every year it gets worse with the rising cost of living.
And if Peter Schiff is right and the country is struck with hyperinflation as a result of uncontrolled government spending, the situation will become catastrophic.
The NWO plan is beginning to take shape.

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

thanks livefreedom

for putting it into perspective.

Ron Paul is my President

Ron Paul is My President

You're welcome

I feel very strongly about this (if you couldn't tell).
I really enjoy hearing things from Russel's perspective.

_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.

me too

if you go to the site: http://www.republicoflakotah.com and click on 'participate' and then 'freedom opportunities' it is interesting.

Ron Paul is My President

Land is a natural right.

My signature for this site is "Land is a natural right."

This is because in the state of nature, a man has land, his animal territory, or he dies. By the same token, true freedom is compatible only with a FREE DOMain: one's animal territory, one's self-defensible homestead, free from taxes.

However -- when a man owns 10,000 acres and keeps other men with their families off of it, what is it that does that? Self-defense? Of course not. In a state of nature such a man's lifespan would be too low for him to even reproduce. And here is where libertarians need to grow up FAST -- when we, in our state of natural sovereignty as individuals, enter into a Lockean social contract to form a civilization that upholds "property rights", we are agreeing not that the government will tax and protect our animal territory, our homesteads, for us, but that government will protect much larger properties than we ourselves can protect.

That is a service.

What rational individual sovereign would enter into a social contract with other individual sovereigns that would offer such a service, frequently involving dealing death, for "free"?

Land is a natural right.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Contest?

What realm do you move to when two men dispute a claim of land? Who decides? Guns and force?

"This is because in the state of nature, a man has land, his animal territory, or he dies." False. I'll state nomadic tribes which didn't occupy any one stretch of land for set periods of time.

"However -- when a man owns 10,000 acres and keeps other men with their families off of it, what is it that does that? Self-defense? Of course not. In a state of nature such a man's lifespan would be too low for him to even reproduce."

Who says he owns it? Him? Where did he get it from? Did the land just magically appear there one day and he was the first person there with a flag? Where are you pulling this "man's lifespan" gig from? Who says he isn't a nomad who travels those 10,000 acres, murdering the men who trespass on what he claims as "his," raping the woman and forcing children upon them?

It sounds disgusting, but this isn't unheard of tribal behavior.

"when we, in our state of natural sovereignty as individuals, enter into a Lockean social contract to form a civilization that upholds "property rights", we are agreeing not that the government will tax and protect our animal territory, our homesteads, for us, but that government will protect much larger properties than we ourselves can protect."

False. Who says what you can and cannot protect? What are you protecting it from? If you have a barn and live in there alone, what stops a gang of men from breaking your door down, shooting you, and occupying your barn? Who's threat of vengeance stops them nowadays? If there is no overwhelming force to stop them, mediocre men WILL take the path of gangs.

"What rational individual sovereign would enter into a social contract with other individual sovereigns that would offer such a service, frequently involving dealing death, for "free"?"

I don't understand this question, and if you could expound upon it further I'll address it.

Eric Hoffer

Good stuff

_________________________________

My liberty-minded home base of thought:

www.ponderthis.net

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

he's pretty good

Means in the past was associated with the controversial activist Ward Churchill, who had given the nominating speech for Means in 1987 when he sought the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party in a heated race against Representative Ron Paul. [5] He was defeated by Paul, who later returned to the Republican Party.

Means began an acting career in 1992, appearing as the chief Chingachgook in The Last of the Mohicans. He made subsequent appearances in Natural Born Killers.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Means
---------------
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

I lived in the Black Hills during the 1970s.

He was one of the few honorable men of his tribe, yet the press slandered his name.

--Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
---------------------------------
January's song: That's the Way of the World by Nelson Rangell

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

I'm sorry

Did I just hear him say that his clan system means = "Instant conflict resolution"

He's not talking about the instant conflict resolution they had before Europeans got here where they'd go to war with each other I'm assuming?

And if I here one more feminist idiot yacking about "Matriarchy" being the solution to all the problems of the world, I'm going to find a copy of the Divinci Code and shove it straight up their behind. Then I'm going to track down Dan Brown and punch his face for making it a pop culture term.

He's claiming that "property taxes" are significant of a "patriarchal society." Oh really?

"Patriarchy is the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of, and authority over, their families."

And then he yacks about family units? He's equating male leadership with fear, and female leadership with liberty?

I'm sorry, is this an ad for feminine hygiene products or what?

How does Mr. Means pretend that a clan system is a good way to run a country? Am I hearing this correctly?

He's parroting phrases with what seems to be little to no understanding of the underlying principals. He's yacking about property taxes being the worst thing in the world, never minding that they're nowhere near as bad of a hindrance to productivity as income taxes are, like they're the stupidest thing in the world.

I'm sorry, but who does this joker think he is dressing up like a native american and then talking about property taxes?

"Born again primitive" I'll accept that, maybe primitive in the use of his brain.

*EDIT* Before I hear any of the "white man stole their lands and murdered their people and small pox blankets and oh the poor native americans and you're a racist ethnocentric jerk" arguments, please realize that I had MORE than enough percentage of Native American blood to get free college and that my great great grandmother walked the trail of tears.
"I'm not anti Native American, I'm anti idiot."

Eric Hoffer

Thank You Erik

For saving us all from that bad ol' Indian. Oh, wait, he's not even a REAL Indian like yourself, he's just DRESSED UP like one.

I think you need to stop being so jealous and get a life.

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

Ah Yes

A good point SoBe!

The maker of a delicious beverage and a talented debater as well, you've gone and reminded me why I was so annoyed.

He's selling out the Native American culture as a way to draw attention to himself, making a mockery of their culture and traditions, not to mention misleading the public at large.

Now I know why I got such a gut level dislike of him.

Thank you so much for reaffirming my views.

It reminds me of that one guy at the bar who pretends to have an English accent to pick up girls. The word we used for him was, "slimy."

Eric Hoffer

It sounds more

like you are selling him out Erk, just so you can take his place around these here parts.
The guy is out there doing his best as far as I can tell and what have you ever done?
Get your own life Erk. Run for office, be a leader, not a flamer.

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

Do ya one better

I'm a business owner SoBe, I won't run for office until it's large enough that I can sell it off.

What do you mean about "these here parts?" I haven't seen Means posting any kind of rebuttal to my points, so I don't know "what place" I'd be taking. I made the same points about Huckleberry when he was running in the primaries about him selling out his religion, and also the same points about Giuliani selling out 9/11 in order to get votes. It's immoral behavior, and I don't care who you are or what party you're running for.

You have no idea what I have or haven't accomplished. I can tell you that I haven't pissed on the heads of every Native American out there at least, nor any other group who holds their culture sacred.

If this is his best, how could you possibly support him? I'm not saying he's an awful person or that he hasn't been a good help for Indians in general or whatever, but he certainly needs to rethink his basic premises. While he may support the Libertarian party, his views still aren't Libertarian in these respects. I'd take him in comparison to Obama or McCain, but I'd take any member of this board over them.

If Means would deign to refute me on any of the points I've made in reference to his statements in this commercial, I'd love to.

Eric Hoffer

The point

is that Russel Means is a popular guy here at the DP and his videos are shown quite frequently without anyone blasting them the way you have.
You really need to explain why you feel that Mr. Means is selling out Native Americans because that is a rather serious charge, Eric, and it's unfair that the guy isn't here to speak for himself.
Would you say the same things in the same hostile manner to his face as you've written here?

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

Absolutely

He's running for office.

I'll quote Dr. Paul, who was quoting Sinclair Lewis when he said, "When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

The Indian wisdom and way of life is being used in this way to popularize a candidate and blind people to what he's saying. Everyone feels sorry for the Indians and we all know they got the shaft, so they don't directly go after his points. I've noticed that the only point anyone is attempting to refute me on is his sale of the Indian culture.

*Quick Edit* Someone did argue with me about whether property taxes or income taxes are more evil, but that's been it.

And he's not selling out Native Americans. I actually believe he's done them a great deal of good in bringing them to attention quite sharply. My charge is not that he's ruining Native Americans or harming them, it's that he's using their culture to get votes and portray himself as wise instead of standing on the concrete base of his ideas.

My support for Ron Paul is so extreme because he's one of the only politicians I've ever seen supporting himself on ideas as opposed to pandering to the archetypes in our minds.

I'd make the same argument to him in person. If he's going to stand as a Libertarian, a member of the party of principle, then he'd better stand on his principles instead of using a drum and images of Indian warriors in place of ideas.

I don't care how popular he is here at DailyPaul. We're an anti-establishment type of crowd and so is Russel Means. That doesn't, however, mean that he's correct in what his reasons are, nor does it imply that his solutions are based in reality. His popularity will not lend credence to his ideas.

Eric Hoffer

He

seems to me the kind of person that would stand rather firmly on his principles. As far as the Indian way of life and look, well, that just appears to be HIM... that's just Russel Means.
It's not a sin to look and sound like a Native American is it? You haven't and probably can't prove that he uses Native American props to sell his ideas.
And if you can't prove it - then why make the charge?

And there have been several comments made concerning property taxes, just only one directly to you and we were all sort of waiting to see where that conversation went.

I did read in the Tax Foundation's latest annual survey, that 39 percent of the respondents said property taxes were the most unfair state and local taxes, making it the least popular by about a factor of two which seems to give a lot of credence to what he has said.
Why would you blast him with your flamethrower set on *extra crispy* for saying something that so many agree with?

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

Last post before I head out for a date (wish me luck)

He may stand firmly on his principles, I just don't believe those principles to be libertarian.

As a rule, I don't trust anyone who thinks matriarchy is any better than patriarchy. They're usually selling something.

"You haven't and probably can't prove that he uses Native American props to sell his ideas."

You're telling me his use of Native American culture doesn't strike you as similar to the Huckster's? I mean if it doesn't that's fine with me, but to me it's so similar it's scary. Does the word, "Statesman" jump at you when you watch that? When I listen to Ron Paul, that's what I hear and that's what I see. When I watch that video, I get this taste in my mouth like someone is putting something over on me.

"And if you can't prove it - then why make the charge?"

I'm remembering this the next time I get in a 9/11 debate. Just kidding, really.

"I did read in the Tax Foundation's latest annual survey, that 39 percent of the respondents said property taxes were the most unfair state and local taxes, making it the least popular by about a factor of two which seems to give a lot of credence to what he has said."

Erm, what were the other categories that they said were worse? I don't have the dated. However, it's irrelevant. The majority of people can believe whatever they want, it doesn't lend credence to the idea with sheer numbers.

"Why would you blast him with your flamethrower set on *extra crispy* for saying something that so many agree with?"

Because my flamethrower has a "no appeals to majority" shoot to kill mode. Thankfully, all logical arguments are flameproof and therefore safe from my advanced weaponry.

Eric Hoffer

OK

good luck with the date.

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

reedr3v's picture

Can you disagree civilly? Talking about shoving a book

up someone's a$$ because he/she supports feminism seems a bit over the top. Or punching author Dan Brown's face because you didn't like his book?
Ok, you didn't mean it literally, but why the hostility? And why so insulting toward Russell Means who is a strong libertarian.
We in the freedom movement have lots of disagreements; but if we can't support each other, respectfully noting our differences, we weaken our own cause.
Maybe you could learn from Means/anarchists/feminists. Maybe they could learn from you. We'll never know if we're standing in rigid little boxes hurling insults at each other.

I said rear!

Feminism is as much a bucket of collectivist drivel as socialism, anarchism, fascism, nazism, and any other "ism" I can think of except Capitalism.

Dan Brown is an idiot riding the current market for feminine image themed books. Most likely, he looks at himself in the mirror every morning shouting, "Why couldn't you just have been a woman?!"

While it isn't entirely his fault that the last remnants of the feminist movement have latched onto his books like they're the last rock of salvation, I'd rather he had never produced them.

I'm disagreeing with what Russell Means is proposing in this video. He may have some great ideas (somewhere, I haven't gone looking) but they aren't contained in this video segment. He's using his status as a Native American in the same fashion Huckleberry used his Christianity in the primaries. I don't support implying rational thought and tradition and strong values through the use of pictures of men with feathers on their heads and a drum beating in the background. I support them through the expounding of their ideas in a rational format.

The ideas he is giving are downright bad. The format he gives is shameful. I won't support the sale of Native American culture as a way to prop up ideas which won't stand on their own, it's disgraceful to the culture. It's salesmanship first hand, and some things are sacred.

He's equating "matriarchy" with all things good. Liberty, justice, Ballpark Hotdogs, and good cigars. "Patriarchy" he's blaming for wars of aggression, taxation, theft, and corruption. The only difference between these two terms is that one is a family group led by a woman, and one is a family group led by a man. Can you please tell me where he got his logical justification for these ideas?

I'm not much for "respectfully noting our differences" and then moving on. If I think someone is wrong, I'll tell them why I think they're wrong, what reasons make them wrong, and what reasons make up my argument. It's rational discourse, and it's necessary if we're going to make progress.

Now for the insults.
He doesn't come off as a libertarian, he comes off as a demagogue running on the fact that he's a Native American as opposed to having any real set of ideas. He uses words like as if he were ordering condiments for his type of hamburger, not as if they were legitimate concepts which were important. Men (and women) who don't respect the meaning of words don't get my respect. I unfortunately can't call a relativist a true libertarian. It doesn't mesh well with Capitalism. He may be riding the bandwagon, but there's no way I'd give him the whip and let him handle the horses.

Eric Hoffer