Proof vs. Punishment

Larken Rose

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."  _{- Voltaire}

November 16, 2008 - It never ceases to amaze me how bad Americans are at thinking.  Unfortunately, that applies to many in the freedom movement as well as the general public.  I'm not just talking about me not liking their conclusions; I'm talking about the complete absence of logic in the way they think.

If you were to suggest that the platypus is warm-blooded, and I slugged you in the nose for suggesting that, does that prove you wrong?  No.  Does it prove you right? No.  Does it prove anything about what you said?  Obviously not.  Whether you're right or not depends upon what the EVIDENCE shows (e.g., whether the internal temperature of a platypus fluctuates significantly).  And it depends upon nothing else.

Yes, that example is a bit silly, but not any more silly than what many people, including both government propagandists and some pro- freedom folk, argue.  "You went to jail, so why should I listen to your theories?"  If I had claimed to have some risk-free way to not give the IRS any money (which I never have claimed), then me getting into trouble would be relevant.  If, however, I said, "Hey, look what the law books say!" and got put in a cage for it, that's not proof of anything.  And if instead the feds had left me alone, that also wouldn't prove anything.  Whether my legal conclusions are correct — whether anyone's conclusions about anything are correct — depends completely and entirely upon whether EVIDENCE and LOGIC supports those conclusions.

For quite a while now, some people have been touting Pete Hendrickson's book, Cracking the Code (at least the second book by that name) as the Holy Grail which would save everyone from the IRS.  And some people couldn't imagine why I wasn't joining in the chorus, based on the claims of people using his "method" with some success.  Even with a legal position I believe to be correct, I have long cautioned people that being RIGHT doesn't mean you're SAFE.  Often it's the opposite:  it's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong, as Voltaire said.  When people were citing several large refunds that the IRS had issued to people who had relied on the 861 evidence, and when the IRS wasn't doing much to the people who brought up that issue, I repeatedly warned people NOT to cite that as proof of anything.  The fact that you DIDN'T get punched in the nose (or prosecuted) is no more proof of what is true than the fact that someone DID get punched in the nose.  "I got a refund!" is not proof that your claim was legally correct, nor would failure to get a refund be proof that your legal position is NOT correct.  That's as true of the theories in "Cracking the Code" as it is of the 861 evidence.

(For those of you who like to use, "Look at all these refunds," as proof of something, do an online search and find out how many refunds have been issued based on the completely baseless "slavery reparations" scam.  The number dwarfs anything the "tax honesty movement" has ever accomplished.  And it proves nothing.)

Unfortunately, it seems like many people don't really CARE what is true and what isn't.  They care what, as they put it, "works."  In other words, they want an easy solution, and they don't want to be bothered with having to find out what is TRUE and what is not in the meantime.  And if the truth can't magically save them, they don't seem to even care what is true.  In short, they have no real love of the truth; they just want to keep more of their money.  Wanting to keep what is rightfully yours is perfectly justified, but some of us also value truth for truth's sake, no matter who it saves or who it gets into trouble.

To get to the point, I just heard that Pete Hendrickson, author of "Cracking the Code," has been indicted.  However, while I think that several of Mr. Hendrickson's legal conclusions are dead wrong, you will NEVER hear me claiming that him being indicted is proof that he was wrong, any more than I'd say that someone NOT getting indicted is proof that he was right.  But a LOT of people in the movement were spouting that logical fallacy for a long time, as they have done so for countless theories in the past.

Please, back up and grasp reality.  The federal income tax provides some people with a LOT of power, not just because of the money, but because of the control it gives over the economic decisions of tens of millions of people.  Whether those in government get that power through legitimate taxation, or through fraud and deception (and you know which I believe it is), why would anyone expect them to willingly give up that power?  If someone says, "We don't owe this tax," the people whose power is at stake will of COURSE try to shut that person up, whether he's telling the truth or not.  Yeah, sometimes they are slow about it, but in the long run they're never going to condone less power for themselves, or tolerate people who try to achieve that.  When someone gets indicted, or convicted, or gets an injunction against them — whether it's me, or Mr. Hendrickson, or anyone else — it proves one thing:  PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT LIKE POWER.  (And who still needed any further proof of that?)  And that's all it proves.

I hope Mr. Hendrickson beats the tar out of the feds.  But whether he does or not will have no bearing whatsoever on whether his conclusions are correct or not.  (I expect the feds to do their usual tap-dance and obfuscation tactics when it comes to the issue of "willfulness."  I believe Mr. Hendrickson's conclusions to be flawed, but I've never seen any indication that HE doesn't believe them, and that means he committed no crime.)  I'll include a link to the DOJ fear-mongering piece (which they call a "press release"), in case anyone thinks I'm making this up — since some people seemed to think that Mr. Hendrickson had found some magical way to make the feds be nice to everyone.  The "press release" is, of course, mostly the feds' usual insult, demonize and threaten message, so don't take my including this link to mean I agree with anything the feds say in it.

Man Indicted for Submitting False Documents With the Internal Revenue Service

But notice how the feds exploit peoples' inability to think, by sending out the implied message, "Look what we're doing to this guy, and that proves he's wrong!"  Unfortunately, such stupid reasoning coincides perfectly with what I've seen a LOT of people in the freedom movement claim:  that NOT getting into trouble (at least for a while) proves that someone is RIGHT.  It doesn't.  Evidence and logic proves what is true, and who is right.  Nothing else does.  Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people don't have the time or desire to study things for themselves.  So they will do what they have always done:  jump from one claim to another, never knowing what is true and what is false.

STUMBLE IT!

More Good Stuff:

Articles by Larken Rose — Political philosophy of a man passionately interested in the freedom of his fellow man, moving intellectually from conservatism through libertarianism to anarchism.  Read the latest indictments against our tyrannical ruling elites.

How To Be A Successful Tyrant — Eradicate the self-determination and self-ownership of others and replace their free will with your will.  If you have an innate “love of dominion” and believe you can run other's lives better than they can, this book will show you how.

Kicking The Dragon — A chronicle of a modern-day witch-hunt.  The disturbing facts of the case pull back the façade of “due process” and the “rule of law” to reveal the United States government for what it has become:  a gang of lawless criminals interested only in preserving their own power.

ONLINE STORE — Interesting stuff you can download.  No need to sniff all over the web  -  the best stuff is right here.

Theft By Deception — This is a startling revelation for income tax professionals, income tax enforcers and administrators, and the average American who expects nothing less than truthfulness in taxation.

Would You Have Signed the Declaration of Independence? — Provide your causes that impel you to a repudiation of 'business as usual' and clearly state your demand that we reinstate and enforce government of law and liberty under the Constitution.