DragonMaci

Bare in mind the context in which gold value fluctuates, ie, an economy with a dollar ever-changing value. In such a situation, the price of everything will fluctuate with the price of most things going up in the long run.

I am personally unsure if state governments are even needed. I know NZ needs only a national government (we have no states so the word "federal" does not apply). We don't need the regional governments we have. We are a small country, so the one level of government is enough. But I am not sure if the same applies with large countries and state governments. Why not only have a Federal government? I don't see why multiple governments are needed. Also, it seems to me that one set of laws is better than multiple sets of laws. EDIT: In addition to that: the more levels of government there are the more funding is needed to fund government. I am not keen on that. I like the idea of government budgets being as low as rationally possible, especially in a laissez faire nation.

It is most definitely not. That is a breach of freedom of speech. He initiated no force against anyone.

It is a typical argument used here in New Zealand. But then NZ is a socialist paradise. That is actually quite an interesting idea. I doubt it'd affect their views at all, but I'd be an interesting experiment.

Just because one values something does not mean one wants to do it at any given moment. For example, I value reading, but I do not always feel like reading. Also, for some people (eg myself) foing the a particular thing a lot eventually gets boring. However, boredom from trying to figure out what to do can easily be overcome even if one does not feel like doing the things one thinks of at first; just keep thinking about it until one finds something. It usually doesn't take that long if one keeps at it. The problem with many people is that they give up on it too quickly.

Few people are like that. I am not. I like something or not regardless of who I do it with. I think in that regard you are. No offence but I find that hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that you never have any moments were you take some time to think of something to do. Do you always think of something almost immediately. If not what do you feel while trying to think of something? Because usually people feel boredom while trying to think of something. It is far from impossible. Many people feel it. Not necessarily. Sometimes one is not in the mood or is too tired. Yes, it is a common phenomenon, but it is not necessarily true of people that are bored. I'd say the vast majority of the population do.

It is simple; one does not feel like doing any of the things one can think of to do. At any given moment one cannot gaurantee always wanting to do the things one likes doing overall I disagree. I have many elements of my life that I do not like, but overall I am happy, yet I still have moments of boredom. I think my above explanation is the reason, at least for me. I am not like that. I sometimes have moments like I described in my first paragraph. Although in saying that I have not been bored in a while and at times I am finding it hard to choose between the things I like doing. I personally find that counterproductive. Instead I always keep thinking about things to do until I find one I want to do at the time. Talking about boredon doesn't cure it; thinking of something to do does. Be careful about that; not everyone fidgets because they are bored. Some do it because they like to keep moving, others do it because they are high in energy, others do it for other reasons. Besides, sometimes people have a good reason for being imaptient (ge they do not have the time to wait around in a queue for long). That is not what boredom is. Boredom is not wanting to do the things of interest to you that you think of at a particular time What I mentioned above is not laziness.

This is just sick. No man should have to pay for his own prosecution. To me that is just as bad as making a man incriminate himself.

Yes, it would, which is why I said no more. All I can really say without giving even a tiny spoiler is that the speech was better than the one in Faith of the Fallen and only Galt's speech beats it. I was really impressed with Goodkind.

Firstly, I asked about the law, not whether or not they have the authority. The two are not the same. I know they have the authority; that much is obvious from the fact that they are allowed to get away with what they do. Secondly, the tax protesters do not believe the the IRS does not have the ability. That isn't what they are saying. Having the ability to take away our freedom and the law requiring a 1040 be filed are different things. As a side note, I prefer the way that here in NZ only parliament can pass national laws and that the various government agencies and departments cannot. The local councils can pass bi-laws of course, but in their case they have no agencies. They might have a few departments, but I am not sure.

That is typical of government's today. The most recent one like that in NZ was a law to protect the Maui and Hector dolphins, which are biological cousins unique to the North and South Islands of NZ respectively. However, these really do exist and instead of being funded via taxes the law will instead cost the fishing industry an estimated 300 jobs and $80 million over 5 years. I think the real costs will be much higher. I doubt the direct effects will be that low and to add to that there is also the flow on effects to take into account.

Ah, well, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

I don't think buying a URL to prevent others from getting it is a legitimate action. Besides, it makes no real difference; there are countless others that they can buy.

This is proven by the fact that the vast majority of SoT fans are not only not Objectivists, but have in fact never heard of Objectivism, though almost all of his fans at the official forum have. Furst five really. It isn't until Faith of the Fallen (which actually had a song written about it) that TG really gets into obvious Objectivism. However, I think it is unfair to call it "classic fantasy". Right from the beginning the series was meant to be a medium for philosophy rather than fantasy for fantasy's sake, which is what classic fantasy is - and he succeeded right from the beginning. He started early on with the Zedd's trick against the maruders and his statement of the Wizard's First Rule and continued from there. Actually, there were traces even before then, but that was the start of philosophy being a big part of the series. He didn't. I have seen transcript of an interview him on the official site and he says he discovered Objectivism as a teenager and according to either the same interview or a different one he started the series as an adult when he was building a house for him and his wife. At the time he had only planned to do WFR and only for himself. But then halfway through writing it he realised that others would want to read it, so he decided to submit it to a publisher. No disagreement there. It is the most explicately Objectivist book of the series. However, I think all three of the Chainfire Trilogy (for Tenure, that is Chainfire, Phantom, and Confessor, the last three books of the SoT series) come close. In fact I think Richard's speech at the end of Confessor is better than the one he gave at the end of Faith of the Fallen. I also think that the Wizard's 9th and 10th Rules are almost as good as the 6th Rule, especially the 10th.

Ops, "classify" should be "clarify". I don't think so. TG writes from his own ideas, not other people's and he is not have any responsibility to make the future books consistent with the TV series (it is a 22 episode TV series (about 42 minutes per episode plus ads, not a mini-series). If anything the Sam Raimi has the responsibility to make the TV series consistent with the book series. On the subject of the TV series, TG says the TV series will be able to fit material in it that wasn't in the book. He gave the example of actual footage of George Cypher stealing the Book of Counted Shadows. Personally, I am worried that it will be a failure because Raimi is at the helm. I am not a fan of the only other works of his that I have seen (Spider Man and Spider Man 2). Actually, TG said it is being syndicated to many TV networks depending on state and country. I think that is true for many people. It certainly is for me. I used to be a big fan of fantasy (with the unusual exception of LotR), but now the SoT series, my own works, and a friend's works are the only fantasies I like. But then, to use TG's wording, most fantasies are fantasy for fantasy's sake, SoT is not. TG uses fantasy as a philosophical medium. He said he could of just as easily chosen a different genre and probably will in the future.

Firstly, the point was that saying what you did without proof is pointless. I am not going to simply take your word without proof. Secondly, it was neither a rant nor a waste of time. Thirdly, if you think it was a waste of time why did you reply? Isn't replying to something you consider a waste of time rather pointless and also a waste of time?

You know saying that without proof counts for nothing. That was a baseless assumption since I gave you no indication of my source. Read my first reply block for my reply to this. That would be true had I believed it. However, I did not. Nor did I disbelief it. I was on the fence (and still am since I have only your word that the video is not true and no proof). I put many disclaimers in my posts to make that clear. I can quote them if you want. EDIT: Anyway, in short, I was not gullible since to be gullible you have to believe something first. And as a side note, there are many elements about that film that I am skeptical about.

No, they were expected to find it own their own without any help according to the juror that was interviwed. Sorry, i looked back at what you said and it seems i misread you. I apologize for that and the subsequent hassle that caused you. Firstly, you have no reason to not believe they couldn't find it; you yourself provided an possible explanation for their lack of ability to find it when you said: (Bold added to illustrate what part I am referring to.) Secondly, I don't think it is necessary to prove that people failed to find the law. Just because a law is there does not many any particular person will find it (assuming for the sake of this paragraph the law is there). Thirdly, it is not an idea, but rather a claim by those people that they could not find the law. Whether or not they are telling they truth is up for debate, as is whether or not they were incompetent. Again you just said how they could credibly not see the law. Another possibility is that they were stupid or could not interpret the legalese in the case of the jurors. As I am sure you are aware, manyl people get confused by legalese. And I suspect that is the way the regulators want it to be. Yes, but I never said it was, so you wasted your time. Yes, but I am not arguing otherwise, so you wasted your time. Neither I nor the people I am referring to said anything like that. Well, the people I am referring to are not saying there is none; they are saying they cannot find it and are challenging the IRS and congress to show them the law, which if anything assumes there is one despite their inability to find it, but what they are getting is suspicious evasions, irrelevant insults, contradictory statements, and rubbish comments like the claim the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings are irrelevant. That is suspicious; if the the law is there, and I will assume for now it is, why not just show it rather than just evade, insult, contradict themselves, and claim the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings are irrelevant? Could you point it out? Because all I saw was a statement from the IRS that merely seemed to be saying there is a law. Maybe I misread it or misunderstood it, but that is what it seemed to me. But in any case it was not a lack of paying attention. That would be true if I was trying to prove something, but since I am not trying to it is not necessary. What is an indictment? We are not under British common law anymore; we are under NZ law. It is NZ laws that matter to what I am legally required to do. Beside, the debate is about US law not British, NZ, or Canadian law.

Then why get the other URL?

Maybe you should of tried wording it as a joke and I might of seen it as one. It is very hard to tell when someone's text is a joke when they don't word it as such or use some other means of making it clear it was a joke. And as a side note, as jokes go it was rather poor. All I saw was people saying the IRS says this or that, which does not convince me that such a law exists. Do you know that you were looking for the same thing as them because until you do you shouldn't be commenting on you finding what they were trying to find. As Google just does not cut it considering that they looked through a far better source, ie, the statutes and regulations. I am not ignoring it. Nor am I saying they are right. If you read my reply to DavidOdden you will see a statement of what I am actually doing. He does a poor job of showing it and in fact acts like he doesn't. Besides, the error I was pointing out was mainly that he cannot rationally say I should know USA common law because I have not been a victim of it and have in fact been a victim of NZ common law. The law he was saying I should know about is a USA law not an NZ one. We have no 1040, only a similar document under a different name and different laws. EDIT 1: I clarified the wording in the second to last reply block. EDIT 2: As an aside, NZ hasn't gone the full way to being independent of Britain unlike the USA. We are still a part of the Commonwealth and still under the British monarchy to some extent. In fact some of our local rates (a form of land tax charged by all regional governments) are supposed to go to the monarchy. None of it does don't, but some of it meant to.

Yes, and I was asking what the point of the answer was. I did not know since I did not know what you meant. If what the agency writes is law then there is a problem; the government should be making laws, not the agencies.

What does the second line mean? I cannot figure out what it means.

Sadly, while that is true, they are a minority. Most of the commenters on the forum of the official Terry Goodkind website are far from Objectivists. On, and welcome to the forum, EKUzombie. I myself love the SoT books and I am quite happy with the ending. What is with the name? EDIT: Although, i should classify that TG has stated that the series may not yet be over, just that the Imperial Order story arc is over. He said he has other stories he'd like to tell in that world and maybe even with the same set of heroes.

I am from New Zealand, not the USA, so there is no, "I should know". I am a victim of a different system. If you are referring to my calling SoftwareNerd's comment silly it does no such thing and is in fact beside the point of that post.

What is your point? I assume by "we all" you mean "all Americans" not "all people" because many people from other countries do not know about such how such works in the US. As an example: I only just heard of a 1040 weeks ago and beyond its existence and the purpose of it I know nothing about it. If it really is knowledge, then no they cannot. However, whether or not they can is beside my point. Well the former IRS agents and former IRS lawyers I am talking about looked through the full thing and couldn't find what requires personal income tax returns. Neither could the jury after looking through it all. What do you mean by "it is still mandated by reality"? Reality does not mandate taxes; quite the reverse since they are destructive. I am not suggesting it is probable. I am suggesting that former IRS agents and lawyers, and the jury could not find the law requiring personal tax returns after looking through the statutes and regulations. That is a matter of inability to find the law either because it isn't there or because they failed in some way, not ignorance. In fact all of them went into it assuming there is such a law, so one could hardly call them ignorant in the way you are suggesting, ie, ignorant of the existence of that law. I have no idea what that has to do with anything let alone the rest of the paragraph that it is from. I am not saying that, but if the law does exist and the former IRS agents and tax lawyers cannot find the law then a problem exists, whether it be the inability of the agents and lawyers, or ambiguous or misleading wording in the law that creates confusion or misinterpretations. In fact I am not even saying that there isn't a law. I am suggesting that it may just be that the IRS says there is but there in fact is not, whether it be fraud or error on their part. I am not sure if that is so, but I do wonder based on what I have seen. Maybe, but I am not going from his video, though if it is the one where CNBC interviewed him and a former IRS tax lawyer then I have seen it. What is "metaphyscially controlled ignorance of the law"? Government agencies honest? Isn't that a contradiction in terms in today's system of government? Actually, I don't have any reason because I don't think that. I have no idea if there even is a dichotomy. I don't even know what the two types of law are in the US and as far as I know we have only regulations in the form of Bills and Acts in NZ, not statutes. But I could be wrong about that since I have little idea how the NZ system on MMP works beyond the fact that we have 120 seats, though sometimes more depending on how Moari seat and elective seat votes go, and that the system boosts government spending by making coalitions almost a neccessity to get 61 or more seats to form the government. Then there is a point of difference with the NZ system (I think). I believe all NZ laws are up to intepretation, especially with the ambigious wording of many of them (eg: The Bill of Rights states that we have the right to use "reasonable force" in self-defence, even if it is fatal without defining what the law considers to be "reasonable force"), but even without the ambigious wording they are still open to interpretation. In fact some even leave whether or not something is illegal up to police descretion (eg: the Anti-Smacking Bill leaves it up to the police whether or not a parent has used an illegal level of force on their children, meaning that a parent might, at a police's descretion get charged for lightly shoving his child out the door to hurry the child off to school - and one parent did, though he was found innocent). TSA? What is that? I am from New Zealand, not the USA, so there is no, "I should know". I am a victim of a different system.