News Could the culture war become civil war?

[SOS2008]

Ignorance is Bliss... Why do they have to do it infront of our faces? I'm so insulted!

Ignorance only seems to be bliss, and it has been used throughout history to control the masses, particularly by organized religion. The thread on Bush endorsing ID is just one of many examples of how he and his cohorts have been working against science (e.g., stem cell research, global warming, etc.) and to misinform the citizenry via media manipulation and propaganda.

Let's just hope there will be enough people who will come to the realization of who Bush is, what he represents, along with the corruption and undermining of democracy in our country, and also feel insulted (if not embarrassed), and maybe even outraged.

 

[outsider]

SOS, I completely agree with what you are saying. How do we change a system which is so corrupted by those in power. We as individuals play for smaller machines that play for the bigger machines. To withdraw from the system is to withdraw from our roles, which will affect our livelihoods. It tends to be a never ending cycle that is unbreakable, and the government strategists know this. It seems as if the damned if you do and damned if you don't scenerio is ever sitting on my lap.

 

[Smurf]

The answer's simple, just get a sizable number of people to refuse to pay taxes.

 

[DM]

The answer's simple, just get a sizable number of people to refuse to pay taxes.

And get arrested

 

[outsider]

What if the sizeable number of individuals involved the police / authorities?

 

[Informal Logic]

There are many people who have been apathetic, but are becoming more aware and involved, as illustrated by the increase in voter turn out in 2004. The problem of propaganda remains, however. Grass roots movements can do wonders. If people can keep the pressure on the media, etc. so our country can refocus on real and important issues, hopefully the poor performance (even unethical behavior) of various incumbents will become glaringly obvious.

 

[DM]

What if the sizeable number of individuals involved the police / authorities?

That's a case to call it 'civil war'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The answer's simple, just get a sizable number of people to refuse to pay taxes.

And get arrested

Ironic that this is how the USA got started, isn't it?

 

[DM]

Ironic that this is how the USA got started, isn't it?

To avoid havoc? You can bet the US will do almost anything to stymie large protest activities.

 

[Smurf]

And get arrested

They can't arrest everyone. Besides it's not a huge offence in Canada, I immagine you Yanks would have a tougher time though.

That's a case to call it 'civil war'.

No, that just means the Authorities will refuse to pay taxes and refuse to arrest people who don't pay taxes either. The Government is subject to the PEOPLE, not the other way around. It's only a civil war if people start an armed rebellion and the military is used.

Ironic that this is how the USA got started, isn't it?

Exactly the point.

 

[DM]

They can't arrest everyone. Besides it's not a huge offence in Canada, I immagine you Yanks would have a tougher time though.

But doesn't taxes constitute a vital part in Canada's GDP?

No, that just means the Authorities will refuse to pay taxes and refuse to arrest people who don't pay taxes either. The Government is subject to the PEOPLE, not the other way around. It's only a civil war if people start an armed rebellion and the military is used.

Personally it would be a negative augury. Moreover if authorities initiate to participate in protests, and given the government ignores it, these protests have the potential to escalate into a civil war.

 

[Smurf]

But doesn't taxes constitute a vital part in Canada's GDP?

Taxes constitute a vital part of any countries GDP, that's why it's such a powerfull protest tool.

Personally it would be a negative augury. Moreover if authorities initiate to participate in protests, and given the government ignores it, these protests have the potential to escalate into a civil war.

1. The government won't ignore it.

2. If the government ignores it then... you no longer have to pay taxes... you win! and if you still want to protest you can find another way to do it. Just keep adding on pressure after pressure until the Government; a) ceases to exist, or more likely b) responds to your protests.

3. Why would it escalate into civil war? Organized tax evasion is still a long way from organized rebellion.

 

[DM]

Taxes constitute a vital part of any countries GDP, that's why it's such a powerfull protest tool.

Precisely why I find it peculiar for Canadians not to consider it as a considerable major offense.

1. The government won't ignore it.

One does incline to this view, partially I do too, but what happens when it's counter-productive? Doesn't the potentional for a civil war remain well bred?

2. If the government ignores it then... you no longer have to pay taxes... you win! and if you still want to protest you can find another way to do it. Just keep adding on pressure after pressure until the Government; a) ceases to exist, or more likely b) responds to your protests.

What I meant is if the government remains adamant and persists on demanding these taxes to be paid.

3. Why would it escalate into civil war? Organized tax evasion is still a long way from organized rebellion.

Merely because authorities are involved. It may be an insatisfactory response but in my view, if a country is devoid of authorities to calm tumultuous protests, and once again given the government ignores it and perpetuates to demand payments, this can only culminate in ramifications, thus an inevitable civil war.

 

[Smurf]

Precisely why I find it peculiar for Canadians not to consider it as a considerable major offense.

I think you'll find as a general trend that Canada isn't anywhere near as policed as the states, we are very lax by comparison in all our laws.

One does incline to this view, partially I do too, but what happens when it's counter-productive? Doesn't the potentional for a civil war remain well bred?

How does it become counter-productive? Give me an example.
I don't understand what you mean about civil war, how is this going to encourage civil war at all, let alone to a significant degree?

What I meant is if the government remains adamant and persists on demanding these taxes to be paid.

They already insist on having taxes paid, the question is one of enforcment, which is why you need a large number of people to do it, they can't enforce it everywhere forever. So they must either start killing people or give into the people's demand.

Merely because authorities are involved. It may be an insatisfactory response but in my view, if a country is devoid of authorities to calm tumultuous protests, and once again given the government ignores it and perpetuates to demand payments, this can only culminate in ramifications, thus an inevitable civil war.

Look at this scenario: 100,000 people in Washington refuse to pay any taxes at all. A spokes person comes forward and makes some demands before they will resume paying taxes. The next day 10,000 more people refuse to pay taxes. The federal government orders the arrest of the people organizing it. The Police refuse. Every day more people refuse to pay taxes.

Life continues, people go to work, people have babies and buy food. Only the government is cut out of the loop. What are they going to do? If a civil war starts it will be because the government tries to get the military to force them to stop, and that wouldn't work even in the USA, especially if the movement has that much support.

Also, there's a big difference between 'civil war' and a little bit of unrest with a few riots. BIG difference.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Merely because authorities are involved. It may be an insatisfactory response but in my view, if a country is devoid of authorities to calm tumultuous protests, and once again given the government ignores it and perpetuates to demand payments, this can only culminate in ramifications, thus an inevitable civil war.

Why do you talk of 'what if' scenarios when you have England itself as a good example?

You do remember Maggie Thatcher and the Poll tax don't you?

So many people didn't pay the taxes that the judicial system couldn't cope.

Eventually, the government was toppled.

Since then, there hasn't even been a hint of a return to government in the UK for the Conservative party ... even with Tony running around in Iraq.

 

[Smurf]

We should topple the liberal party. Maybe then they won't come back .

 

[DM]

How does it become counter-productive? Give me an example.
I don't understand what you mean about civil war, how is this going to encourage civil war at all, let alone to a significant degree?

Counter-productive in the sense of not heeding to the warnings and protests. Counter-productive in not ignoring but instead ignoring and demanding payments. How is a nation going to overthrow a government when the administration of this same government clashes against people's perceptions and remains defiant? I believe the nation is resorted to manifest its perceptions in a forceful manner.

Look at this scenario: 100,000 people in Washington refuse to pay any taxes at all. A spokes person comes forward and makes some demands before they will resume paying taxes. The next day 10,000 more people refuse to pay taxes. The federal government orders the arrest of the people organizing it. The Police refuse. Every day more people refuse to pay taxes.

If protests are patchy in the country, the accumulation of people attempting to negate government's arrests are not sufficient. The proportion needs to be bigger. If the government demands you to pay taxes and you fail to do so, the government can liquidate your business, legally remove items from your house or in the worst case scenario put you under arrest. Now in terms of protests, the size of people refusing to pay is what determines the government's actions towards tax avoidances. The latter is what leads me to believe that in order to negate government actions, a colossal size of people are required to create a civil war, granted that the government remains defiant in demanding tax payments, in order to overthrow its administration.

For a government to withdraw taxes is highly unrealistic, even with protests being present in the country. Scraping taxes would never, as far I speculate, occur. A possible remedy is to lower taxes but never scraping them.

Therefore for citizens of a nation to completely demand a tax scrap, a civil war, once again given the government remains adamant, is the only solution.

 

[DM]

Eventually, the government was toppled.

It toppled without a civil war. The government accepted defeat.

 

[Smurf]

Counter-productive in the sense of not heeding to the warnings and protests. Counter-productive in not ignoring but instead ignoring and demanding payments. How is a nation going to overthrow a government when the administration of this same government clashes against people's perceptions and remains defiant? I believe the nation is resorted to manifest its perceptions in a forceful manner.

Why? What liberal government would resort to force to stop protesters? What population of a (formerly) liberal nation would allow it?

If protests are patchy in the country, the accumulation of people attempting to negate government's arrests are not sufficient. The proportion needs to be bigger. If the government demands you to pay taxes and you fail to do so, the government can liquidate your business, legally remove items from your house or in the worst case scenario put you under arrest.

DM, you're not going to be able to put the government in a position where they can't respond. The idea is to put pressure on the government to realize that they can't maintain control of the country with their current course and thus, you force them to change.

Now in terms of protests, the size of people refusing to pay is what determines the government's actions towards tax avoidances. The latter is what leads me to believe that in order to negate government actions, a colossal size of people are required to create a civil war, granted that the government remains defiant in demanding tax payments, in order to overthrow its administration.

What exactly are you on about with 'demanding tax payments' they can demand all they want, it's expected. The whole point is that you refuse to do that in order to put pressure on the government. I don't understand the rest of this part.

For a government to withdraw taxes is highly unrealistic, even with protests being present in the country. Scraping taxes would never, as far I speculate, occur. A possible remedy is to lower taxes but never scraping them.

What's this about withdrawing taxes? You start paying taxes again once the government gives into your demands.

 

[Smurf]

It toppled without a civil war. The government accepted defeat.

..Yeah! That's the goal. Mission accomplished.

 

[DM]

What exactly are you on about with 'demanding tax payments' they can demand all they want, it's expected. The whole point is that you refuse to do that in order to put pressure on the government. I don't understand the rest of this part.

Not viable. You haven't considered my response to your supposition:

If the government demands you to pay taxes and you fail to do so, the government can liquidate your business, legally remove items from your house or in the worst case scenario put you under arrest.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Not viable. You haven't considered my response to your supposition:

As an individual, yes.

As an organized tax revolt, the government is only able to process in a civil manner.

Once the people exceed the capacity of the government to act through civil law for non-violent offenses ... ie. the courts are packed until there can be no other cases heard except for those of tax evasion and all the cells are filled with people who would not pay taxes (As happened in Scotland) the government must either accept defeat or declare the people enemies of the state and move to a government resembling the former USSR.

This is the point I tried to make on another thread regarding who it is that is in control. Do you work for your government or does your government work for you?

A government rules with the sufferance of the people.

 

[DM]

Once the people exceed the capacity of the government to act through civil law for non-violent offenses ... ie. the courts are packed until there can be no other cases heard except for those of tax evasion and all the cells are filled with people who would not pay taxes (As happened in Scotland) the government must either accept defeat or declare the people enemies of the state and move to a government resembling the former USSR.

Thanks for the explanation. I was unsure about the authenticity of cells becoming packed, but now that you cite Scotland, I'm able to assimilate your point.

 

[Smurf]

I have nothing to add to that. I don't believe it would even get to the point that it did in England today. The government would realize they can't put everyone in jail and find some other way to respond, possibly something we havn't considered yet.

 

[Smurf]

Thanks for the explanation. I was unsure about the authenticity of cells being packed, but now that you cite Scotland, I'm able to assimilate your point.

Unsure? They only have so many cells DM, where would they put everyone?

 

[DM]

Unsure? They only have so many cells DM, where would they put everyone?

I'm sorry Smurf, but I think it's you who's missing the point. I was not sure if prisons or cells could become "packed" due to tax avoidances. I always believed, until TSM cited Scotland and I naturally remembered, that citizens would always heed to government's demands when put in difficult circumstances. Like he said; "As an organized tax revolt, the government is only able to process in a civil manner."

 

[Smurf]

Ah. It's just like any protest really. If a single person walks into the street he gets dragged off by the cops. If 40 people march down the middle of the street the police block off roads to keep them safe.

 

[DM]

Ah. It's just like any protest really. If a single person walks into the street he gets dragged off by the cops. If 40 people march down the middle of the street the police block off roads to keep them safe.

It doesn't necessarily have to be an ambush. A simple visit by officers to your home or work place would be the civil manner to approach an individual who refuses to pay taxes.

 

[Smurf]

It doesn't necessarily have to be an ambush. A simple visit by officers to your home or work place would be the civil manner to approach an individual who refuses to pay taxes.

I don't see your point, that would obviously be their first course of action. But if an individual has decided not to pay taxes they'll probably be anticipating that and won't change their mind because of it. It does happen too, there was a woman in Alberta who refused to pay taxes, eventually got 6 months in prison, far as I know she still doesn't pay. Not sure if she's out now or not.

 

[DM]

I don't see your point, that would obviously be their first course of action. But if an individual has decided not to pay taxes they'll probably be anticipating that and won't change their mind because of it. It does happen too, there was a woman in Alberta who refused to pay taxes, eventually got 6 months in prison, far as I know she still doesn't pay. Not sure if she's out now or not.

Well at least here, officers approach citizens who refuse to pay taxes by knocking at their doors or waiting for them at their work place. I fail to understand why an ambush is the only appropriate way to reprimand and demand payments from an individual. Why do you think squatters are almost never caught? For it to be an ambush, the individual responsible for paying the tax needs to be qualified as a hideout citizen whom he or she deliberately conceals itself from authorities.