end game

Never trust a bought and paid for lobbyist acting as a politician to pass a law to protect you from the same entities that fund their campaign. The way I see it this decision entitles the landowners in the dispute to do what they deem necessary for the protection of their assets. Any Unconstitiutional law is to be considered "null and void", so therefore the decision of the Lords has no merit.

Yes, they can. Here is a link to the SCOTUS decision concerning showing ID: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21...urt%20case' Now, whether it is right or not is another story. Eric Mathis, Under the Brady Act, the records obtained on gun purchases had to be destroyed and could not be retained by the FBI. To this date, they still keep the records and do not follow the Act. If we apply the same logic to the Real ID Act, what they say and then do are completely different. I see a Helgian influence in the RIDA in which the ramifications are beyond belief of what will be done with this vile piece of legislation.

Let me make this more clear. A company develops a product and then sells the product to the government which then before purchasing puts the item out for bid. Now lets add this from the USC concerning purchasing: 52.227-5 Waiver of Indemnity. As prescribed at 27.203-6, insert the following clause: Waiver of Indemnity (Apr 1984) Any provision or clause of this contract to the contrary notwithstanding, the Government hereby authorizes and consents to the use and manufacture, solely in performing this contract, of any invention covered by the United States patents identified below and waives indemnification by the Contractor with respect to such patents: _______________________________________________ [Contracting Officer identify the patents by number or by other means if more appropriate.] So, your assumption is wrong on all accounts. I deal with this quite frequently, therefore, I have some idea what I am talking about. Joynewyeary original post: "This passage seems to raise some fundamental issues of ethics and psychology. One problem with competitive situations is that they motivate some people to use dishonorable methods of competing, but that isn't the issue that is raised in the above passage. Maybe the connection between competition and free enterprise tricks some people into thinking that there is something necessarily good about competition. Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?" I provided a example based upon the premise. If you fail to see that then that is your problem.

I'll refer to your original question with an example. A company I know of develops and obtains patents for a certain product. They then sell the product to the Defense department. The Defense department then puts the item out for a bid and another company wins the bid. They then start making the same item. The original company protests because of the patents and investment in the development of the product. The gov't responds that under the rules a company does not have to follow patents when the item is being purchased for use by the gov't. So, under these terms, competition takes the position of the looter advocated by the mother of all looters. The goal was forfeited in the name of competition. Who really benefited from this action considering the firm that got the contract was eventually sued and put out of business because they sold the seconds to a private liquidator.

I think you know the answer to the question. My point was to counter the onslaught of mandates put forth to keep the rat running the maze. Remove the maze by making the master search for information to help the rat find the cheese. The real question concerning the IRS is, why must I file required reports that I am not compensated for as well as collecting their revenue without receiving compensation for doing so? Requiring one to do anothers work without compensation denotes slavery, yes? They have had me do their work for years. That is why I have decided to close my business and become a member of the no-contribute class. I refuse to "donate" any more time to those who do not deserve. I have had some dealing with the agency you mentioned in the past. Here is quote directly from a representative, "if you don't pay your taxes, we don't want you in business". OK, fine. Now explain to me how a sports stadium is built with taxpayer funds, filed as a tax-exempt sports authority, and pays no property or income taxes with reference to the above statement? I ask this question rhetorically concerning the last issue.

The only way to win the game is to make them work much harder than you by chasing inane tasks. People constantly tell me that gov't is unorganized and inefficient. I tend to disagree. They are very efficient at adding tasks for you to accomplish so that you may get the reward. Their goal is to deprive you of your assets by permits, licenses, fees, and taxes. Remove the benefit, money, from the situation and the game changes. I say flood the non-producers with requests for information that requires research on their part. One person doing this means nothing. Two percent of the population doing it will grind the machine to a halt. A machine requiring maintenance does nothing and does not produce anything. Morality has nothing to do with China. If the populace is complacent and will accept whatever wrongs done onto them, then that is what they deserve. You can have all of the morals in the world. It still won't help as you are run over by a tank as was the case during the riots in Tieneman (sp?) square. Here is a short insight into the thinking in China. I have a friend that used to work within a position in the State Dept.. In the embassy the maintenance was done by a local Chinese company. If something broke, a call was made to repair the problem. A week later two men would show up and look at the problem. They would defer the problem to a supervisor who would then come out two weeks later. He would then defer the problem to another supervisor who would assess the problem. The workers at the embassy who were US citizens would fix the problem as no one is willing to accept any form of blame in China. Now this may not be typical, but the friend recounted that this was the only post in which this was the case.

G:"Yes, it does. Incorrectly. Your comment was that since you can not cash out and leave this country with all of your money, then we have passed the point of no return. I assume that the "we" here is we as a society, and that the "point of no return" means that the political regression toward tyranny cannot be stopped. The argument doesn't follow." May I board a plane to leave the country with all of the funds I have in cash way in excess of $10,000 without hinderance? In what way does the seizure of my funds if I chose to do as above not ring with tones of tyranny? I earned it, paid taxes on it, now the same entity want to lay claim on it again? My guess here is that you have not had many experience of late dealing with financial transactions. Anything from getting a cashier's check or wiring money is brought under scrutiny including paying cash for anything. How is it exactly we can put a stop to this under the present system? G:"Specifically, I claimed that the position "I cannot presently cash out 100%, therefore society's slide toward totalitarianism is unstoppable" is absurd. Which principle of Objectivism does this ignore?" You take one sentence and not add the context of what I further said, "Your position that my statement is absurd is ignoring the basic principle of Objectivism. My wealth is mine and no other has a claim against what I own." Is not what I own mine or should others have claim to it. Which way do you want it? G:"But the decision to "shrug" is not the to-be-assumed response to every injustice; this was my only claim. I only made this response because I feel it's too flippant to claim that the US is "beyond the point of no return". At the very least this point is certainly not self-evident. Further, I believe it's far from the truth." I made the decision based upon many factors involving the financial conditions that exist today, not merely the examples I stated. When the ultimate looter need more revenue, they come knocking at my door. Simply put, I have chosen to no longer answer the door. Their welcome has run out. By the way, did you notice that trading was halted Friday 15 minutes early and the indices were brought down below the stop gap which halted trading? That sure tells me something, how about you?

gnargtharst, I never stated that my tax rate should be zero. I stated that regulation applies to me that does not to another. I collect sales tax for the State. That action is a self defeating task. Why should I be responsible for another entity's funds? G: "With all due respect, this statement is absurd. A "point of no return", is exactly that: a state of things in which there is no event or movement which could possibly prevent this nation from reverting toward total destruction and tyranny." You may refer to "point of no return" however you wish but my statement stands. Freedom is ownership without encumbrance. Your position that my statement is absurd is ignoring the basic principle of Objectivism. My wealth is mine and no other has a claim against what I own. Under a flat tax, I pay on what I consume. This tax is applied across the board. Instead I pay a tax for unemployment for the malfeasance of another corporation. Congress solely has the power to tax. Those taxes are required to be applied equally. Show me where the tax paid to a State agency, not a federal agency solely for the benefit of former employees of another corporation are applied equally. Again, I am not responsible for the actions of another including a corporation. My departure from the system is my choice. I don't feel frustrated in the least. I am happly with my decision. My lifestyle will morph into another. That other livestyle will still involve what I enjoy. However, the benefit will solely be for myself, not others. I shall not say what I will do. That would not be prudent to broadcast on a public forum. Software nerd, Yes, this is all I can say. On your other statement, the mind is the most valued asset. However, since others want to lay claim against your knowledge, I say do not allow them to benefit from said knowledge. The time is now to stop what I call looters. Our economy is driven by a false set of numbers, ideals, and worthless script in the name of currency. The only resort now is a reboot of the system. Those that have knowledge and skill will continue, the looter will not. Bold Standard, We do not have access to safe investments anymore. The hand has a long reach. This is why many intelligent and savy companies have relocated offshore at great expense. To limit the damage when the hemoraging begins. Assets outside of the limit of the hand cannot be attached or seized. Now gambling that assets might be nationalized instead of seized should give you an idea how most successful corportations believe will be the norm in the future. Business is a game of protecting what you have from those who want what you have. Furthermore, taxes fall under the same premise. I say game over, hence my screen name. They need me, I don't need them. JMeganSnow, The duty is to myself. I have no responsibility to those who remain. They must make their own decisions. If I follow though with my plan you are correct in the assumption that it won't make much difference. However, I no longer will play the game which in turn will increase the liability of others in the same arena. Therefore, they could possibly come to the same conclusion of I. Taking a fragile system and denying the system what it needs could have a positive effect at least for those in the future even though that is not my intention.

I'd have to add "Leon, The Professional" to the list. It is the unedited version of "The Professional".

G:"So? Regulations are an injustice. how do you get from that obvious conclusion, to "shrugging"? Regulation is injustice. Simply by the act of regulation an advantage is placed upon those who are not regulated in the same manner as I. Do you not think that collecting income for others without compensation violates the credo of capitalism? G:"What do you want to do? And, why aren't you doing it already?" I will do what I want instead of what I am required to do. I have sufficient means to exit the system now instead of creating an additional 20 years of income for those who use it to destroy me through further regulation and taxation. G:"I gather form this statement that the benefit of your work is "enjoyment[ment] of the work and the action of producing". Taxation negates that?" Yes, it most certainly does. If I produce to benefit my business and increase it's value, I am penalized by an increase in tax on the inventory or increased value added by a property assessor. G:" How would you do that? As an investor, for example, you will still be supporting the looters to some degree." Every transaction that involves money supports a looter in some way. You can choose to minimize the exposure to the looter as I am in the process of. If I invest in tax free municipal bonds, then my income is not subject to tax thereby bypassing the looter completely. However, funding the ultimate looter by granting them the funds in the form of a bond still suppports the looter. You must make a choice in what you must do in which I have. G:"No return from where? From freedom, and a more rational future? I would bet that most people on this forum would disagree. Certainly most professional Objectivist intellectuals disagree. I have found that a large number of people who read Atlas Shrugged suddenly see the nature of the problems of the world more clearly, and conclude that we're doomed. I disagree. The world's problems didn't just get worse because you finished Atlas Shrugged. Only your perception of them." When innovation and achievement is penalized where as non-producing is rewarded, there is no rational reason to continue funding the system that provides for said element. I don't follow, I lead. Therefore, I could care less what the consensus of "Objective intellectuals" beliefs are. I didn't read the book to formulate an opinion of something I was already aware of. I could care less about the problems of the world as they are not my problem. I am responsible for myself only. Does this sound familiar? My perception is based upon real world experience not some ideal taken from work of fiction. G:"It's your choice obviously, but here's a question: will this course of action make you happy? Your particular shrugging may solve your particular problem, if you judge the obstacles in your path as insurmountable. But, if you like your work, and despise the thought of the looters using you as their golden-egg-laying goose, perhaps there're other more productive methods of fighting them. (Contributing to ARI strikes me as one simple alternative, e.g.) This country is far from the "point of no return", and values are abundantly achievable. " Again, the answer to your question is yes. Whether or not the problem could be overcome, the premise still stands. I use my labor and skill to benefit myself. When that benefit is assigned to another via taxation, then it is my duty to remove that benefit so that other who do not produce cannnot receive what they do not deserve. I ask one question of you. Can I leave the United States with all of the money I have in cash? When that value is achievable, then we have not crossed the point of no return. If I have earned my money in a manner that is deemed legal, then it is my choice of what I want to do with it. I would not be permitted to leave with the cash without paying taxes on money that has already been encumbered. [Edit: removed "white space" at end of this post caused by extra carriage returns. --Felipe]

In reply to your questions, When you own a business, you must deal with many aspects concerning regulation, taxation, and so forth. With that being said, when I spend my time filling out reports, filing taxes, amongst other numerous tasks, I am not being compensated. Therefore, to protect the most valueable asset to me, time, I must decline to perform those tasks. Consequently, if I do not perform those tasks operating as a business, then eventually those that are the non producers will exercise a claim against what they have no claim against. The action that best serves my life is adding more time for what I want to do. I currently work 7 days a week usually long hours. Many of those hours are non-compensated, I do what I do because I enjoy the work and the action of producing. Removing the benefit by taxation and regulation negates the benefit. Therefore, the best solution is to remove myself from the system in a income earning role. In the United States we have a situation mentioned quite frequently called outsourcing. Most people do not understand the reasoning for it nor do they care. I understand the reasoning for it but would go a step further. When a product comes into the country, a levy is issued upon said goods in the form of a duty. Nowdays each agency that inspects a shipment also tacks on a fee to the duty. Considering the trade defecit, taking the defecit figure and adding 10-12% of that figure in the form of a direct tax that must be paid within 2 weeks of a product entering a port, you find that gov't actually benefits more from the action of importing versus domestic manufactuing. I outsourced a complete line of products we used to manufacture. Instead of being able to write off most of the cost of producing, another problem surfaced. The amount of taxes on said goods actually increased the cost on large shipments which were required to meet a target price. My broker has sent reports to me concerning Walmart and their putting off deliveries of product from China so that their target date will ensure the selloff of the inventory in quick fashion. This is done to reduce the tax liability of having unsold inventory. I came to this conclusion by researching the vessel reports and goods stated for import on said vessels. My broker simply wanted to tell me about possible delays in shipping transport for containers. I broke down the report and informed him of the real situation. We as a country have reached the point of no return. The economy is driven by retail sales and incomes are created by the tax appraiser's office in the form of higher valued assets and property. I could stop my action at any time as I have not reached the point of no return. However, I do not think it is prudent to continue to provide for those that make decisions that have negative effects upon me.

Felipe, Thank you for your reply. Before I answer your question, I must ask another. Have you in the past or are you now a owner of a business?

Typing the words "objectivism forum" got me here. So here is my story. I being 40 or so in age recently read Rand's works starting a couple of years ago. While I knew I thought differently from others, reading her work established a clear objective that I must pursue. This objective is the same one as in "Atlas Shrugged". I've decided that the benefit society receives from my work is not justified, therefore, I will no longer produce to benefit those who do not. Frankly, I'm tired of using my labor and skill at the expense of time. The ultimate beneficiary of all we produce is the same one trying to deprive us of what we obtained by using the skill and labor. I own a business. Last year I received a letter from the State workforce commission or unemployment office. It stated that my rate was being increased from .89% to 8.9% to recover lost expense paid out to former Enron employees. This equivocated to the sum of 7K in which I paid by forgoing my salary. This action wasthe catalyst by which I made my decision. If I am expected to do without so that others may have, then I will no longer provide for those who think they have claim to what I have. The path I have chosen will not be easy, however, it is one that I must take. I have begun to liquidate my assets and formulate plans to close and liquidate my business. Now comes the part I need your help with. Which investment vehicle will yield the highest return in the safest manner so that I may exit the system permanently?