I have not picked up the wrong shoe, and in vain have spent too much of my own precious time, cramming the shoe onto my foot, and then hobbling around with very poor fitting shoes.
My point about making sure that the goal posts are not set in mud, or worse, has to do with picking an accurate word where a false word has not worked in the past, when the effort is a mutually understood desire to transfer accurate meaning SO AS TO defend against people who resort to deceit against the innocent, to defend against innocent people who resort to threats of violence against innocent people, and the goal is to combine the power of many Friends of Liberty in the effort to defend against people who resort to very horrible, very terrible, and very destructive violence upon many, and many more, innocent victims.
If it is theft, then why call it anything but theft?
Why use the false currency dictated by the dictators?
Currency is a tool that can be used by people to find mutual agreement, so it is a tool, currency is a tool.
Currency can be picked up by a dictator, and currency can be falsified, it can mean one thing one minute, and then it can mean the opposite thing the next minute, so the problem isn't the tool, if the idea is to get around the problem, since the tool can be used to get around the problem.
Tax defined well can be thus:
A transfer of power from those who produce power to a central location whereby that collected power is then controlled by some method.
The problem I see with someone who is incapable of communicating is such that at some point they will claim that "it depends upon what is is" and I can illustrate this point.
How can many of the victims stop being victims of crime made legal if there is no way in which their power can be transferred into a large enough store of power that will deter criminals who may be targeting one of the victims?
A gun, for example, is a large store of power that would not exist had not a lot of people transferred their individual measures of power into that gun.
Who controls the gun?
If the criminals stole the only gun, and passed a law that says there will be only one gun, without question, then what?
The "let them eat cake" answer, I've heard time and again, might be: I will make my gun, despite the order, and anyone else who may be without a gun can eat cake.
That misses the point.
One person does not have enough power alone to make a gun.
What is wrong with this picture?
Blame it on English?
Blame the tax?
The gun did it?
God did it?
The Devil did it?
The extra large drink did it?
If tax does not work as a word then the idea is to replace the word tax with a less powerful word?
Bear, or anyone, consider two scenarios that I can illustrate and perhaps this will convey accurate meaning concerning the vital need for individuals to agree to transfer power to a central location whereby that power will then be employed in a way that could not have worked without that power collecting in that way, from many, to one collective power, and then that power used up in that one way.
Suppose we two, you and I, get a phone call whereby an innocent child is captured by a very bad person and the innocent child will be tortured and then murdered to death by 12 noon tomorrow.
We only have enough time to get the exact things needed done if there are 3 of us working to arrive at the goal post, to save that child, and we have 2 minutes to convince a third person to join in this example of this defense of Liberty in real time.
I try for one minute, and I take 30 seconds worth of our time to tell you that we should try someone else, and you take the remaining 30 seconds to work on the person I think is not going to see clearly in time.
I wasted a lot of time trying to nail down the meanings of words, so as to get to the point.
Now, please, you can do with my illustration whatever it is you can, or want to do with it, but that is not far off of my situation.
I cannot ever stop knowing what happened when Waco was live on Reality Television.
Up to that time when that first Episode made it's way onto National Major Media, the first broadcast, the first in the series, up to that day I had been on this path you just got on.
I knew what they were going to do to those people.
I had an M1 Rifle and ammo and I got to the point of calling a phone number to join an armed march on Washington. This is not a fabrication. I am not an agent provocateur. You should be guarded against such things, sure, and there is no way for you to truly know what brought me to call that phone number, desperately wanting to join in on an effective method of dealing with THE TRUTH.
I've had enough of arguments for the sake of argument.
They go nowhere on purpose.
God, or the Devil, or our own stupid incapacity to know better, or a power struggle of all kinds of knowable and unknowable powers brings us to situations whereby we are powerless to do what must be done to save our own souls, and failure is not an option, and being forced into failure will be very bad, and not just very bad for piles of commingled tortured and murdered innocent bodies, but for us too.
So yea, I'm saying "save the children" and to do that we have to tax ourselves, and we have to figure out how to become more powerful than our enemies, so if you don't want to call it a tax, then don't, and if you don't want to call it government don't, but don't just sit there and dictate to me what I think, what I know, what is right, and what is wrong, because we are running out of time.
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, appro