Russo has a movie called "America From Freedom to Fascism which is the reason for the interview.

That video of Aaron Russo is pretty informative about the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Don't get bored and NOT watch the whole thing. He is a Jew and you can be sure he understands just about anything that has to do with money, taxes, all kinds of money and its many forms of swindle. Everyone knows the "bankers" are the Jews. The common man may not know that the Federal Reserve is privately owned by Jews, but most people know the majority of banks are run by Jews.

My disagreement with Russo is that fascism DOES NOT come out of the Communist Manifesto; COMMUNISM comes out of the Communist Manifesto. Calling it Fascism is probably an intentional distortion.

Here is the link again. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15293198&hl=en

I don't know what Russo's game is. Usually, Jews hide their motives and manipulations.

Hmmmm...interesting.

__________________
Hi, I like communications. I like intelligent and amusing people. We might disagree, but that's okay. Just don't be boring.

Then you disagree with logic and reason.

No, it does not. If every individual human being on earth dies, does society continue to exist? No.

No, there is no "cost" to maintain a non-existent concept. Taxation is theft. It is immoral.

What logic proves is that each and every adult individual has the right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity he or she chooses to engage in. Individuals do not have a right to use force, fraud or coercion against each other, except in self-defense. Groups of individuals are bound by these same principles. A group of individuals called government should exist as leadership - to protect the unalienable rights of individuals from force, fraud or coercion. But this government has no legitimate role in controlling peaceful, honest, voluntary behavior.

As for funding, Thomas Jefferson easily funded the federal government without taxation. And as the following article from history shows, people respond to advertising and will voluntarily send money to government if they are convinced a need exists.

How far could we go with this? Well, if we're going to be scientific about it, that would require an experiment. Jefferson's experiment was successful, in that the U.S. became the richest, most prosperous country on the face of the earth. It is time to expand upon that earlier experiment. Remember, anyone who refuses to experiment rejects the scientific method, and is therefore irrational.

No, there is no pre-existing social contract. A contract can only be entered into knowingly and voluntarily.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Does your Kool Aid taste yummy? Is it fruity?

Let me ask you a question:

What countries in the world are booming and succeeding without taxes?

Interesting. Very interesting. I definitely hear that argument, but, ah... I "may" have a counter-example for you. See what you think of this one:

Stupid people.

Stupid people are (or "can be") a "menace to society".

How're you gonna handle that one?

Can you refute my points or not? Keep drinking your Klinton Kool Aid.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Appeal to the Majority fallacy. No one is given the opportunity to try because of collectivist statists like you in power who use force to prevent it.

When taxes have been drastically reduced, as in the case of "German miracle" - where taxes were slashed across the board, government was prohibited from printing excess currency, and government's ability to regulate the economy was severely lessened, GREAT PROSPERITY FOLLOWED. Such is only a "miracle" to collectivist statists such as yourself who falsely claim the government creates prosperity.

If eliminating taxes did harm, then the United States should have destroyed itself between 1802 and 1860 - because there were no internal federal taxes - see below. Instead, we became the most prosperous nation on earth. Taxes do not create prosperity. Free individuals create prosperity.

"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

"Stupid" people would fall under the "evil" people argument.

If people are basically evil, why do you want to give them control over your peaceful, honest, voluntary actions via government? Likewise, if they are basically stupid, why do you want to give them control over your peaceful, honest, voluntary actions via government?

That argument is expanded upon here:

The Nature of Government

See also:

"THE WEAKEST ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT

If we don't have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

The people who call themselves "government" need such problems in order to justify their jobs. It is in their interest to create such problems and make them worse. The worse the problems, the bigger the bureaucratic empires they create, the more money they get, the more power they obtain, the more people they control.

The bigger the government, the greater the problems. A politician like Bush may say that he will reduce government and lower taxes because he thinks it will help him get re-elected. In practice Bush has greatly increased his own bureaucratic empire. His administration has expanded government regulation with abandon. He promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then raised taxes. Under Bush, deficit spending has ballooned out of control."

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Nah, I think you missed it... here's where I was going with that:

Stupid people, are "different from" evil people.

Why?

Because, "evil people", have "evil intentions".

"Stupid people", have no intentions at all - they just "get in the way".

The difference is, that "stupid" people, aren't doing anything "wrong".

And therefore, if you're "coercing" them, you actually are trampling on their freedoms.

See what I mean?

That act of saying "get out of my way", that "steamrolling over someone" like that, that's actually "coercion", right? Even if it's only "get out of my way", it's still an "intrusion" on their space, and I mean, the whole concept of "justice", is you don't do that unless the person's done something "wrong", which translates in most cases into "breaking the law", you know and I mean, if you "get in the way" of a cop, for example, that's "obstructing justice", right?

See where I was headed with this?

It's one of those interesting moral "boundary dilemmas"....

But we're not talking about "coercing" stupid people in the system I advocate. The only time force is introduced is if they use force, fraud or coercion against someone else first. The thing about it is - people have the capability to learn. I don't really believe anyone is stupid. But there are a great many ignorant people out there. But they can learn, when given the opportunity. And people learn best in an environment of freedom.

But stupid people would pose the same obstacles in any system according to your argument. Such people bilk our welfare system now. I remember reading a report of a lady who had 3 or 4 of her sons on welfare simply because they flunked out of school. Why on earth should people pay to reinforce ignorance and support those will not work? People like this could support themselves in low level jobs much easier if there were no income tax and if our currency was stable via precious metal backing.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer