"I do not plead in the court of contracts."
http://www.katu.com/news/local/166407116.html

My grandfather never paid U.S. Income tax-He served in the Army air corps as a mechanic and like many people, slipped through the cracks because he was always self-employed and may have never been issued a number-

All this to reference my personal experience with the IRS:
Haven't filed in over 10 years and when I did last, it was to get money back that they had owed me from having not filed for about 6 years.

You may go back 3 years to get monies the IRS owes you, but they may go back as many years as they want if you owe THEM money. I received a letter from the IRS about 6 years ago informing me that they did not have returns for me from the past 3 years (at that time I was a contract employee whose employer was reporting my income and handing me a 1099-

I ignored the letter, and haven't heard from them since-I only heard from them because I probably owe them money according to their delusional and inequitable calculations. Fuck em. They are all bark and no bite in this man's paradigm. Let the insects swarm, I'll simply Obiwan the robots once again.

I am proud to be able to claim that my grandfather never paid his taxes his entire life, while contributing to the health, well-being, and happiness of all who knew him or did business with him.

I take pride in knowing at least one man in my family, fucked the gangsters before they fucked him.

There is only one Moral imperative observable in nature. "Nothing is true and everything is permitted"

"Nothing is true..." :

All concepts of truth are relative and dependant upon a supporting paradigm(s) to facilitate meaning and context. To say "killing is wrong" would only be meaningful within a structure that defines both A. the intended meaning of the terms used (i.e. linguistic convention) and B. the causal relationships and imperatives of the ethical code/structure under which one is operating
(e.g. Christians might say "because God will get you", or Deontologists might say "because the act is always more important than the consequence, or Consequentialists that say the opposite of the Deontologists etc.)
Either way "Truth" is just a meaningless noise leaving ones mouth unless there is at least some intellectual structure in which to define it. Ascribing "truth" to "God" is just another such intellectual structure.

"......everything is permitted":

Given all moral/ethical imperatives are by their very nature intellectual constructs and that none (as we define them) appear irrefutably to occur in nature we must conclude that the only "moral judge/authority" that provably exists in the cosmos must be our own minds (you can't even prove 100% that other minds necessarily exist). The only acts prohibited by nature are those defined by its physical laws, one cannot commit a physical action that does not have an equal and opposite reaction for instance. Thus "everything is permitted".
However as the fact that ones own mind is and can be the only moral authority it is also implicit in this "truth" (see what I did there?) that one should endeavour to not be found wanting in the eyes of this ethical arbiter. After all your own conscience is the one person you can never avoid! Thus "everything is permitted" when "truly" understood (again lol) does not encourage one to "do what you want" but rather to consider your every action with the utmost care. No one knows your true motivations & desires better than your own sub-conscious and no one could ever punish you as hard for your mistakes.

Hardened violent criminals who repent their crimes rarely do so because prison is an unpleasant environment (they are often hardened men, accustomed to physical hardship). They repent because the enforced solitude forces them to confront themselves!

Thus I assert; moral behaviour is a product of wisdom and self awareness only! Anything else is brainwashing and (often dangerous) delusion as it deprives one of the true (and complicated) reasons for why some choices/beliefs would be mistakes. (e.g. the sexual repression of Christian culture that still remains firmly in place amongst many (most) atheists).

Love is the law, Love under will.
And do what thau wilt shall be the whole of the law.

The primary problem I have with "free market" devotees is that they believe in an "all or nothing" paradigm. They think that everything has to work within a free-market model, and anything that deviates from that is communist and evil.

And I have a big problem with people who try to equate capitalism with mathematics, because the two are not analogous.

Capitalism is not an absolute law any more than a board game is.

Unpatriotic? Wanting to know your enemy inside and out and facing reality is far from unpatriotic. So I'm going to assume I'm misreading your sarcasm and satire.

But he's dead on. So many Americans fail to understand basic history and why so many of the Great Nations of history collapsed. The biggest reasons being fighting too many foreign wars, spending more than they can produce, extreme political disconnect and lack of unity within splintering states.

Political disconnect is so easy to accomplish in times of peace it's rather sad and tragic. Most of the Samurai Code was written in times of peace (such as dying for their master at all costs etc) and we are falling into that paradigm as well to the point it's blinding us to the reality of our own real enemies. </rant>

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

Real clever.
Shrug, no, but you can apparently be just as predictable an asshole as someone who does, eh?

Uhhh, I think all news is complete shit and consider journalism as a profession akin to that of a banker or lawyer, so...Sorry to dash your fantasy about just who the fuck I am. Yo, Libby??.... Republicans are democrats and democrats republicans in this kid's paradigm-I don't play that game with people, it's fucking offensive.

OOooops!-You alerted the comment down-vote PC police squad of culpable deniers with that one bobby, you pathetic troll!! You, you, anti-community, rabble-rouser!!

Didn't you get the memo?? All presidents are sacred since Bush Jr. in this poorly-constructed paradigm-Plus he's an African-American so he's holier than the new fucking pope-Some folks treat divisive language against our cunt president with jihad-launching fervor not unlike drawing a goddamn cartoon strip featuring Mohammed-

Remember: Don't feed these trolls!!

It's an interesting video, and honestly, I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not.

I suppose I'd segregate it into art and engineering

On the one hand, having a single creative vision can result in some great art.

On the other hand, almost all modern engineering of any kind is a collaborative effort. Systems are simply too big and complex for one person to exercise an auteur-like control over.

The problem to me is not collaboration. The problem is getting the right kind of collaboration. The "design by committee" argument is a result of bike shedding.

Henry Ford famously said “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

Pretty good argument for single creative vision, right? Clearly the "people" didn't understand the paradigm shift.

But no great invention occurs in a vacuum, and no great invention was ever perfect on the first iteration. It's an incredibly hard problem. Feedback from users is undeniably important, but a good engineer must be able to differentiate between useful feedback and people who don't understand the problem domain.

Personally, I work collaboratively 90% of the time. The 10% is the interesting bit though

@enoch I'm not hostile towards those who disagree with me, but towards those who intentionally misrepresent me. I'm guessing you once met some fundamentalist hard-headed fox news republican whatever, and you think I'm that guy. I'm not. So, please stop misrepresenting me, it's really annoying.

You suggest letting government/society burn? Sure, maybe that's what we're headed to anyways. I don't treat politics as discussing "what should we do", that's irrelevant if you and I can't agree on what's actually wrong. To me, it's more about understanding the problem.

@dag The problem I see in how you're using examples outside of America is that what you suggest as a solution in another country can just as much be an example of another country's success despite what you're pointing out as the solution.

"we tax the rich a lot in Australia and everything is better over here". Ok. What if Australia would be better off if you didn't tax the rich so much? Then you'd be just proposing we do what's not helping Australia to help America, all the while overlooking whatever is actually working in Australia.

It does seem somewhat obvious that taxing the rich would forcefully reduce wealth inequality, but then we wouldn't be looking at what's causing the inequality, just trying to punch it out of existence with taxes, and possibly establishing more social injustice in the process. To me, it seems quite unfair to tax someone more just for being richer, a moral hazard even (punishing productivity?), but moral concerns are passé and don't seem to bother anyone these days.

@shatterdrose I treat a smaller government solution as something like a paradigm shift. You see government doing things right in country X, Y or Z, and I see them as, most likely, taking credit for what they're not fucking up. I mean, seriously, don't you know governments do that all the time?

There are plenty of people who unfairly benefit from government, but government is mostly not a net benefit to society, and those people will lie through their goddamned teeth about how much good they do, usually taking credit for anything working in society. There sure are plenty of suckers who believe them.

Wanting less government is not snap judgement, it's not dogma, it's quite often what no one ever considers.

Wanting more government is the convenient way out, governments are the agents of every social planner's wet dreams. In their minds, governments always have "unlimited" resources, they're always above any law, they're never morally wrong, and they're always run by honest uncorruptible people.

I love your "get involved" answer to criticizing government. What you don't seem to realize is that I'm criticizing how much government IS involved. That can hardly be changed from the inside. People who run for government always want a bigger piece of the pie, they're not likely to win on a "we want less pie" platform.

@renatojj may i ask a question?
why is it every time someone disagrees with your position or offers a counter-proposal you take it personally?

re-read many of the posts here concerning your comment.
they are actually agreeing with you in many ways but they diverge when it comes to how they may go about rectifying the situation.

this is basic "politics 101".all politics is..to break it down to its most base definition is "what should we do".
thats all...thats it.

your solution is to limit government and ( i assume) give more powers back on a state and local level.
others have proposed a different approach.
i say let it all build to a head and implode under its own hubris while i sit on my lawn chair and watch it all burn.

who is right?
which is the best path that will benefit all?
well of course you think you are right,otherwise you would not think and perceive things the way you do.

but you appear to be allergic to any contrary ideologies to your ways of perceiving and that my friend is absolutist thinking and it is dangerous.

@aaronfr pointed out (quite correctly) your basic misunderstanding of socialism and i would add that you are using the title of "libertarian" in the bastardized and twisted media-induced definition that has propagated like a disease in america.

i tell people i am a conservative libertarian socialist just to watch their heads explode,and the funny thing is....you most certainly CAN be a conservative-libertarian-socialist.
but if you are weaned on american corporate opnion/commentray news that terminology would make absolutely no sense.which @cosmovitelli alluded to.

you can have a socialist democracy.
you can even have a communist democracy.
because one is a system of government and the other is financial.
here in america we have been bludgeoned into believing that capitalism and democracy go together like peas and carrots.

marx is a GREAT read,as is adam smith,and BOTH have been bastardized here in america because BOTH warned of the perils of communism and capitalism.

here in america we have a supposedly laissez faire approach but in reality america is a corporate socialist state.
where corporations take the risk to gain huuuuuge profits and dump the loss on the general public.
and that my friend is basic socialism.
to big to fail and too big to jail.

and here we come to my main point:
i dont think anyone here is disagreeing with you.
it appears they all see the broken system which favors the wealthy and powerful and are angered that money=free speech.
they just have a different approach on how to fix it,this does not make them stupid nor naive,just different.

i actually agree with you that trying to fix the broken system by using the very system that is broken seems counter-intuitive.
you suggest limiting government.
i suggest letting it burn.
others suggest enforcing the rule of law.
while others may deem it fit to vote a whole new legislature into office.

all different approaches to the same problem.

engage with those that disagree with you because it forces you to re-evaluate and defend your position often and sometimes you may find while in those discussions a new piece of information,a new way of looking at a problem that exposes the weakness in your argument.
the intelligent person will immediately dump the former to adhere to the newer and more succinct paradigm.
the fundamentalist will not and will continue to bang the gong for a defunct ideology.

so dont take it personally when someone disagrees with you.
nobody is here to dehumanize you nor dismiss you.
they may make assumptions based on your commentary but you can clear that up quite easily.

on a side note :@dag is one of the smartest and open minded people i know from the internet.dont judge him too quickly.

"I dont beleive in obama vs romney, thats fake politics...this (gun printing)? This is real politics"

So...hes an anarchist, hes in favor of "whoever has the guns writes the history books".

Cool...got it, but this aint a paradigm that the world works with. Good luck.

Kind of tired of this bullshit, people putting words in mouths, behind their own ass...
Didn't call Gifford's a retard, sir. I used the same method as the televised segment, the formula of the media's, bombardment-of-reason campaign for the mind, this same usage of words twisted that you are using now in order to misrepresent me.

Referred to this abject insult to my sensibilities and intelligence called, a fucking senate subcommittee retarded, because they parade children and survivors like Giffords here in front of cameras to push agendas by pushing your emotional triggers.

Then, shall we break down the rest of your squeaking expectorate? Trigger words when reason won't break through the haze in your paradigm fired like bullets.."stupid" "NWO", back to your assumption of me having bullied the woman with derogatory, inflammatory insults-Next, close with a fucking insult, based on what?? Your own bullshit.

Break down your own trip, turn off the fucking television and read some Science Fiction. Sharpen your tool while yer at it?

What a lovely paradigm collision.

Hehehe, they said "paradigm shift"....Dream-On, too many cattle-peeps using their brains for verbal masturbation and ineffectual inaction....Not in my lifetime without some catastrophic or otherwise, world-unifying event.

Meet someone who does not identify with right, left, or any other meaningless dipole...whose opinion is shaped by an inner dialogue and multi-sensory experiential reasoning tinctured with freedom of movement and expression, in an ever-changing constant of evolution:
"NRA, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbauh. and Fox" are constructs of something you believe according to your particular developmental disability which have some sort of effect on the OTHER star-bellied sneetches with more (OB-viouslaaay!) going on upstairs, be it through mo edumacation or proximity or distance from some geographical region of the country over another.

How many more ways can you say fucked, when the distillation of all these incidents as we continue the experiment becomes only:
Police
Soldiers
Private Security
Prison Guards.....who are allowed to carry weapons?

Fuck that world, until guns are not part of the paradigm, fuck that fucking world and those who would that it be that world conveniently for themselves, today...for instance, anyone trying to pass legislation that seeks to limit rights and create laws telling people what they can't do, rather than increase personal responsibility through shaping a society and culture worth saving.