The IRS Running Amok: Forcing Americans Banks to Put Foreign Tax Law Above U.S. Tax Law

[grig24x]

My bank drained my business account with their "safety protection" fees and I had overdraft. I left a note one of the manager's desk and asked her to call me. She ignored my note and went ahead opened my bank account and saw that I made a recent deposit. When that happened, she used the money to pay for overdraft. When I opened my bank account, she said I will have one exempt from overdraft. America will corrupt soon.

[MrJustice01]

I'm from Argentina I don't have much money, but 90% of my savings I have it in an American bank. I can't trust in my government.

[Spjungen]

@MrJustice01 Take it out asap. Put it in a Swiss bank.

[QuranVsHadith]

really sorry to see a great country implode due to the greed of a few idiots..

[safeinsuburbia]

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."

James Warburg

[RockTheOcean4me]

Interesting video, hate to tell I recommended the speaker for the Most Annoying Voice of the Year award though...

[jackzero99]

I work for the IRS and yes there are many stupid people who work for the agency. All they think about is how to collect more revenue without thinking about the effects on taxpayers and businesses.

[durashka123]

Again, you need to look closer. The problems with the regulation are very serious, particularly in monetary policy, that is, the Federal Reserve. It is a state sponsored monopoly -- a private banking cartel that distorts markets so hopelessly it literally makes slaves of all but the owners. Can you see how that could be? Again, please, try.

[amitbarfs]

@durashka123

I agree with you 100% about the Fed. I just think you are confused about deregulation, which is a real problem. Take it from me, I've worked in the industry since 2002 and let's just say we weren't "forced" to take shitty loans, lol. Deregulation paid for my sports car. 

[durashka123]

@amitbarfs I am glad you agree with me about the Fed -- trying to regulate around it will only make it worse, though. The more regulation, the harder it is for competition to start up, the worse it becomes for the customer. It is a simple formula... or, in your words "not rocket science". ;)

Anyway, will all due respect, you should have said you were in the industry at the start and we would have realised we were dealing with a vested interest rather than an ignorance.

[amitbarfs]

@durashka123

Heh. Well now that gas is $4/gal my vested interest is a lot less these days. ;)

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs The government forced banks to cut loans based on race and gender. Those lowered standards effected all market players through an inflated housing costs. The collapse and defaults were a symptom of the problem not the problem itself. Both those regulations and the artificially low interest rates caused the creation of the bubble. That was the problem

[TheSchmuckLook]

The really serious flaw in the 'scheme' is that it will disallow some greedy bastards to hide their income so it cannot be taxed. I hopeHopeHOPE all greedy pigs roast in Hell for a million years. Hey, get as much as you can, legally, I don't care. But pay YOUR share, too.

[a4finger]

great video, wow this is quite infuriating and simply horrible news. Things are definitely going to get worse and worse in this country unless possibly there's a drastic change. There will still be a difficult period as the market corrects itself and liquidates bad dept, but its infinitely better than what will happen if things continue as usual.

Ron Paul for President 2012!

[jrsub3]

Hah, like any regulation gets a cost-benefit analysis.

If they did that, our federal regulation log would be around 1/1000th its current size.

[Charonveritas]

More strain on the US economy thanks to our Dick-tator-n-Chief.

[jum1801]

Except we've seen EVERY regulation attempt by the Obama Admin is merely a way to restrain "enemies" & aid & reward political friends. We're seeing corporations & huge companies (GE, GHoogle) put a huge lobbying effort into regulating themselves a rich future. When major corps begin molding their strategy around govt rules instead of market forces, you have a centrally controlled & fatally flawed system. Regulation is just a way to empower & entrench an already massively bloated bureaucracy.

[Daniel44125]

Any law should have a cost benefit analysis even criminal law. The drug wars are pointless and costly.

[amitbarfs]

folks we are living in a plutocracy. the left and right are in on it together. the goal is to steal wealth from the poor and middle class and put it into the pockets of the ultra elite rich.

[TheAmericanRifleman]

It's time to eliminate another anti-American government agency, the IRS. It's time for the FAIR TAX.

[tutorturtle]

The IRS is nothing less than organized criminal thugs, collecting your hard earned wages to give to the FED, a private bank, illegally issuing worthless paper, based on nothing. Feel better now?

[Isbadd]

Since all funds are fiat, this is a complete red herring. The IRS is a bogus collection agency for the extra-national corporation holding the de facto reigns of power across this great land. Until we end the Federal Reserve and the IRS and begin using a debt free sovereign currency nothing else is anything more than a distraction to throw the American people off of the truth.

[TEHTYMEKITTEH1]

Screw the IRS, Screw the FED, Screw Congress,a nd Screw the POTUS

[TaperTomStrizak1959]

The IRS is an Unconstitutional Agency that's as destructive as THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

[gunguy54]

WTF

[amitbarfs]

didn't bank deregulation cause the global financial collapse? i would think multilateral regulation is a good thing to stabilise the world economy. yes it will mean bank CEOs will have to buy one less yacht, but in the whole it is good for everyone to increase regulations.

[theoldways11]

@amitbarfs the federal reserve, was in part responsible for the collapse. 

[amitbarfs]

@theoldways11

i agree, but this video seems sympathetic to the fed, which is my problem.

[hotfudgemoney]

@amitbarfs LOL. Sorry buddy. REGULATION caused the housing bubble. The federal reserves printing of money causes artificially inflated interest rates.

[amitbarfs]

@hotfudgemoney

deregulation of banking practices caused the housing bubble. regulation would have assured that people who had no business buying homes would be kept out of the housing market.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs No deregulation did not cause the bubble or its collapse. Read the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. Then read Meltdown by Thomas Woods, he explains how the theory applies to the Bubble creation and its collapse.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

i just saw a documentary on how deregulation of wall street and lender underwriting practices caused the housing bubble to expand and then burst. i mean that is how it happened, and i say this as someone who has no ideology whatsoever. but i guess ppl are just in deep denial that a financial industry can do wrong.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Accept that the documentary is wrong. Why would banks sabotage themselves? There was government intervention that created both rules to cut bad loans and low interest rates giving to banks by the Federal Reserve causing a bubble to form. Easy money causes inflation is the real-estate market and a moral hazard to over leverage.

The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle won the Nobel Prize for economics in the 70s. You may want to read it. A documentary won't teach you economics.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

yes what you described is deregulation...the docu (Inside Job) talks about all of that

[eliyahugoodman1]

@amitbarfs as a libertarian i firmly believe that the government should not stop people from throwing their own money away. deregulation allowed that to happen. it is their money they should decide what to do with it and suffer the consequences. it is not the government that caused the crash but rather lousy investments by private investors.

[amitbarfs]

@eliyahugoodman1

agreed but the gov't helped those investors make shitty investments by legalizing bizarre products that the politicians' friends wanted legalized.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs I've seen it. Government forcing banks to do something is not deregulation. Nor is the manipulation of the price of money by the government. The market should set the interest rate. It's Orwellian to think to call it deregulation. I challenge you to read the Austrian theory of the business cycle and Meltdown. Youtube for a lecture on it. Or youtube Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers speech given way before the collapse. He predicted it and wrote a book before it happened.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

i think we are agreeing, you are just being obstinate because you are ideological and are kind of in denial over the fact that the government can actually do wrong. just because you live in a country doesn't mean your government is infallible. governments get things wrong all the time. deregulation leads to horrible things, like the economic crisis, the subprime lending boom, and the housing bubble. it also led to the Enron collapse too! i think you agree but dont want to admit it

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs LOL I am saying government did wrong. I know the government does wrong. It does more harm then good. Our government caused this mess because of regulations it created. Because of interest rates it set. That is regulation, NOT deregulation. Banks would work so much better if it wasn't for the government.

Enron was breaking the law. No deregulation caused that. They just were following existing law. That was just a terribly run corporation and the government failed to notice its crimes

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

meh. corporate malfeasance does NOT happen in a "free market" vacuum. my whole thing is, the banks are out of control and need to be reined in. deregulating them so they can make strange financial instruments to bilk investors is probably not the way to help the American people. i get the whole libertarian profit motive, but i think banks that do business in our country should be very strictly regulated so they don't get away with the schemes of the 2000s.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs They should be allowed to fail if they make mistakes. Without hard money no regulation will protect the people from booms and busts. We need a gold standard. Corporations and banks would not have been able to grow to the extent to pose a huge risk to the economy Schemes wouldn't last long or get big for that matter without the government setting up a moral hazard with fannie, freddie, and the government record of bailing out financials. Stop socializing risk and the free market works.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

now you're making sense. ;-)

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs youtube.com/watch?v=zhoFOyy7rb­o

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

k i will watch later, i'm at work right now :(

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs That is not deregulation. Interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve Bank. Laws forcing banks to cut loans and lower lending standards are regulation not deregulation.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

what you describe is deregulation, actually. regulations would have prevented exactly what you describe. don't bother replying. watch Inside Job instead. :)

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs There are 115 regulatory agencies on the financial industry. That won't fix it anything. Regulations won't stop booms and busts. The Federal Reserve causes them. We need to abolish the Fed and go bank to hard money.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

um if the government regulated the financial industry correctly we wouldn't have had a housing crisis in the first place. why are you being so obtuse? is it intentional?

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs So your definition of deregulation is bad regulation? Deregulation means the removal of existing regulations. The government actually made NEW regulation that forced banks to cut subprime loans to people that did not meet lending standards based upon race and gender. Race and gender should not be metrics in lending standards. Also the Federal Reserve Bank lowered interest rates inflating the bubble.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Not sure what race and gender has to do with the housing bubble. Most defaulters were white men.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Also figuratively speaking. If a disease is originated from a certain population of citizens based on race and gender it does not matter what made up the majority at the end, as the disease effected us all equally. Those people regardless of race and gender should not have been cut loans. Those loans were forced on banks. Of course this was only part of the problem. Interest rates where the vehicle that allowed them to cut those loans

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Not sure what race and gender have to do with deregulation.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs First, I dont think you understand the difference between deregulation and regulation. Second. Race was a factor in who got loans It became a more important metrics over actual financial qualifications such as income. So based on regulations banks were forced to cut loans based merely on race and gender. Many of those people defaulted That caused a chain reaction in a over leveraged industry Who got loans Who bought loans Over leveraging and interest rates were all forced by the gov

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Instead of asking that question to me. You should be asking the government, the ones who made the regulation that forced banks to cut subprime loans based merely on race and gender. What did race have to do with whether or not you would be able to pay back you debts? I can tell you aren't educated on the laws that were in place and caused this mess. I know you don't understand the way the interest rate set by the Fed causes misallocation of resources in the economy.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

What regulation "forced" lenders to lend based on race and gender without regard to income or credit history? In all my years in this industry, I have never even heard of such a regulation. If anything, the government has loosened regulations allowing anyone to get a loan, regardless of race or income. It was good while it lasted!

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Deregulation did not cause this. I too worked in the mortgage industry. Deregulation did not tell banks to cut bad loans. REGULATION THAT EXPLICITLY made banks cut those loans. Those regulations FORCING banks came into existence long before 2002. Try the 70s. They gained teeth in the 90s and were refereed to as affirmative action for the mortgage industry.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

What regulations prior to 2002 are you talking about? I will seriously shoot my monitor and myself if you mention the community reinvestment act, lol.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Meh. Nobody held a gun to lenders' heads and forced them to make any loans. I know it sounds sexy and sensationalist and feeds the "minorities are undeserving of loans" narrative, but honestly, all the banks I worked with were tripping all over themselves trying to tie low-information first-time borrowers into shitty loans. The government is the culprit for deregulating the industry and looking the other way. I can't blame them; their pockets were lined by the big banks.

[lizardfirefighter110]

@amitbarfs Google the letter by New York Governor Elliot Spitzer printed in The Washington Post on 2/14/08.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Community reinvestment act signed into law by Carter lobbied for by ACORN. It essentially had no teeth until the 90s under Clinton. Clinton's housing sec called it affirmative action for the housing market. You can probably find the video online of him saying it. He is now the gov of NY. They had to cut these loans by law. Its a fact.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

lol. brb killing myself.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Everyone with the financial history and credit worthiness should get a loan regardless of race This was forcing banks to give loans to uncreditworthy people based on race and gender. Its a fact. If that law was the only thing out there it wouldn't have been an issue but with the GSE's buying up those loans essentially buying risk and the Fed and low interest rates. All these things worked in concert to create the bubble. All were government involvement and attempts at central planing

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

"This was forcing banks to give loans to uncreditworthy people based on race and gender. Its a fact."

Why do you keep saying this? Most defaulters were white...

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Gender would imply female not a race. Also I already explained this. You may want to read my replies.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Do you not think women and minorities should be assisted in getting loans?

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs No they should not be. Nobody should. A loan should be given based on credit worthiness alone. The government should not attempt to be compassionate for the poor by forcing banks to take risks. Nor should it be buying the loans with GSE's. Women and minorities would be better served if the houses were cheap instead of price inflated by the easy money and government force. In fact minorities and women can probably buy a house now much easily since prices have come down.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

White people get loan assistance all the time though. Why would you single out minorities for discrimination?

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs I am not. Again misrepresenting. NO ONE SHOULD. That is not singling out anyone. Loans should be based on credit worthiness alone.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Seriously though, don't just take my word for it. Talk to anyone working in title insurance, mortgage lending, and underwriting services during the boom. They'll all tell you the same thing: deregulation and lack of government controls, NOT regulatory burdens, caused the mess. And they'll roll their eyes as well at the racist trope that claims that the banks were "forced to lend to minorities." It's seriously offensive.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Its racist to force banks to cut loans based upon race and disregard credit worthiness. I named the legislation that did this. Its not racist to point out that race should not be a determining factor in credit worthiness. Be offended if you please. You should be offended by the government setting up such a plan. Like I said, I too was int he industry and my father still is.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Don't patronize me, I'm a minority myself. I absolutely am in favor of minorities like myself being assisted by the government in getting loans. What you seem to be saying is that minorities are not responsible.

[Daniel44125]

You are an idiot beyond reason

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

No I'm not, but you're not being reasonable. Reason means having empathy for minorities.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs What is seriously offensive is you misrepresenting my argument. I never said the housing bubble was caused by blacks or even women because of their race and gender. I simply stated that when race and gender take precedence over actual financial metrics you will create a situation where you are cutting high risk loans. If whites where the preferred race in the Community Reinvestment Act it would have had the same effect.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

The CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis. CRA-funded loans were more than 90% solvent. The defaults happened in the private market.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs The only economists that believe CRA had nothing to do with the housing collapse are statist Federal Reserve lackies. Giving anyone a loan based on race or gender above actual credit worthiness would lead to bad loans being cut. It wouldn't matter if the people were green. I have no time for this anymore. You won't see the truth because you are blinded by your ideology, emotions, or stupidity. I am not sure which. I am not here to educate everyone.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Ha. Name a single economist of repute who has crunched the numbers and found that CRA-funded loans had anything to do with insolvent loans and defaults.

It is you who is blinded by ideology, emotions, and an ignorant narrative based on internet rumors. I on the other hand have been in the industry for 9 years and know what I'm talking about.

[Daniel44125]

Further I don't think you know what subprime actually means or where the term originated. That terms literally means those people were financially unable to obtain credit due to the risk they posed. They were below the level considered prime. Without the government entities fannie and freddie buying subprime loans from banks, government forcing them to cut these loans, and government providing cheap credit. The bubble would not have existed. This was a failed attempt at central economic planning

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

I have worked in the mortgage industry since 2002. I think I know what I'm talking about, since I have firsthand knowledge of deregulation that swept the industry, freeing us up to take shitty loans from people who had no business getting houses. People who say it was due to overregulation simply weren't there and are approaching the housing bubble from an academic and ideological viewpoint.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs I knew it was coming The way banks were snatching up houses at the sheriff sales. The way houses values were rising in areas where crime was also rising The way values of homes in areas where the schools were terrible Houses were rising without actual value being placed in them. Classic bubble created by artificially low interest rates Combined with stupid regulations forcing banks to over risk and a moral hazard to do so with GSEs buying. The others that predicted it agree with me

[Daniel44125]

Watch Peter Schiff mortgage bankers speech. He was one who predicted it. In fact he was giving a speech on it and wrote a book about it before it happened. Congressman Ron Paul was another as early as 2002. They both agree with me as too the cause of the bubble.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

I get that the libertarian viewpoint is against regulatory principles, but if I'm not mistaken, the easing of regulations is what led to the housing bubble and subprime lending crisis in the first place. I'm fine if Ron Paul doesn't agree with me; he thinks my favorite bar can deny me a beer based on my skin color so I can live without his support. ;)

[Daniel44125]

I highly doubt you understand Ron Paul's argument on private institutions being able to discriminate. Ugly as discrimination is, its someone's right to be a racist unless they harm another individual. Walter Williams a black economists also shares this view. If business in the south wanted to discriminate, why did they need a law to do so? It was racism in the general population and the gov. Businesses only see black and red. Whether they are losing cash or not. Blacks have cash too.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

There is no right for a business to be racist when the racist action violates my civil rights. I get that you're trolling but as a minority I'm highly offended right now.

[durashka123]

@amitbarfs The Federal Reserve was the primary cause of the collapse. Its existence encourages careless speculation. It is a moral hazard.

Government housing subsidies and regulation provided fuel to the fire.

[amitbarfs]

@durashka123

I think you're confused. Deregulation of the financial and housing markets caused the collapse. Back when things were regulated there weren't these problems.

[durashka123]

@amitbarfs I understand that it appears that way but you need to look closer. If you do, you will see the problems with the type of regulation you describe and that the problems are very serious. Please, try.

[amitbarfs]

@durashka123

Yes the problems are serious, which is why more regulations are needed. This ain't rocket science.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs You don't have a right to force someone to think the way you wish. You don't have a right to go to a private house if you wish why should you have a right to go into a private business if the owner does not wish you there. The Nation of Islam, New Black Panthers, skin heads and KKK spew racism all the time. Its their right. Everyone has a right to their own thoughts now matter how disgusting or insulting. Like I said, if a business insults us we can avoid giving them our cash.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs I can't join the black caucus can I? We discriminate all the time. I am sure you don't like smelly or super obese women. Or women with facial hair. Or women with BO. We discriminate all the time with our associations. That's what freedom of association is. With freedom of association we also have the freedom to dissociate. If we didn't, stalking would be legal. I believe in voluntary association.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs I have empathy. Equality is not achieved by giving one group preference or more rights then other groups. In fact I don't recognize groups rights, only individual rights. Empathy is not visiting businesses or associating with individuals that would discriminate based on race. I still believe in their right to do so.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

There is no right for a business to discriminate based on race. It's a pity that Ron Paul and his supporters believe there is, cuz I think he would otherwise be a good ally for the minority rights community.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs The smallest minority is the individual. You should read what freedom of association actually means. Freedom of association implies freedom to dissociate as well. If I as an individual or a business owner would like to dissociate with someone based upon any means I deem I have the freedom to do so. Whether you like it or not. Whether you get your feelings hurt or not. Whether it appalling to you or not. You can't force association. That just breeds more hatred.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Meh. A business' or individual's freedom extends only to a certain point. It ends before the point where it usurps my civil rights. As much as you and Ron Paul would like to believe that the Constitution is static and only protects white men, it's just not true. Lots of things have changed.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs You or anyone else don't have a right to be inside a nightclub, mall, or any other business. You don't have a right to force association on anyone. Business or private individual. That does not violate your rights. It may hurt your feelings or insult you but it DOES not violate your rights. Like I said many times before, freedom of association also implies freedom to dissociate. Forcing a relationship personal or commercial actually violates the other parties rights.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Not true. The right of access trumps whatever archaic right of discrimination that may have existed in the olden days but simply do not exist now due to new rules and regulations where the government said I have rights even though I'm not white.

Oops I used the word you don't like. :)

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Fine you have no right to discriminate. You must marry a smelly, super obese, women with no feminine attributes what so ever.

We have a right to discriminate. Its come from our freedom of association. The government has no right to tell you who you can associate with or dissociate with. That choice lies with individuals.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

There is no right to discriminate when it violates my rights. If I am in your bar and you don't serve me a beer based on race or religion, then that is illegal. There is no right to do it. I get that there was back when it was legal to discriminate against "coloreds" prior to Civil Rights Act REGULATIONS. But in today's age it's just not legal, despite your wishes that it was.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs I also stated I was done with this. I have run out of patience with you due to your inability to show critical thinking skills.

Don't mistake my standing up for freedom a endorsement of disrespectful behavior by business. It's their individual right to do so. Its not your right to associate with anyone you like.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

You're simply flat-out wrong. Your view is not a legal one but an emotional one.

[Daniel44125]

If that party does not wish. Both parties must consent

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs You have no right to access anything from a private individual, institution, or business. No matter what color you are. We don't have a right to force relationships. If so a rapist could claim to have a right to access PUSSY! You have that right so long as the other party consents

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

False analogy. If I am in a bar and being discriminated against based race, then that is illegal. I get that it would be legal if the regulations from the 1960s (that Ron Paul opposed) didn't exist, but newsflash: things change. I realize you would rather live in a time when the Constitution only applied to white male property owners, but it's simply not the case anymore.

It's a pity because I'd be an ideal RP supporter, if it were not for his emotionalist arguments.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Its not an emotional argument. You're the one calling your feelings getting hurt a violation of your rights. If someone does not want you on their property its trespassing, they don't need to give a reason. It's their property. It may hurt your feelings but not violate your rights.

That is pretty low of you to imply that I am a racist. I believe in equal rights. You want unequal rights. You wish to force yourself on individuals.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Do I get a law that allows me to get a Negro College Grant?

Can I apply for a job without being discriminated against for being a white male due to affirmative action(That happens to not look white at all)

Can whites join the congressional black caucus?

Can I get into a college without being discriminated against due to affirmative action?

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs First its not an emotional argument at all. My emotions lie with the people being disrespected as do yours. Reason lies with the freedom of association. It's your argument that is based on emotions and the fact that you may get your feelings hurt. Which I doubt any business with the right mind would adopt a discriminatory business model and survive anyways. As to legality, what is legal is not always right. It was legal to have slaves and burn Jews at one time.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

My feelings aren't hurt, and not once did I ever say that in my hypothetical example of me in a bar that my feelings would be hurt. Rather, I specifically said that if I am in a bar and it refuses to serve me based on my race, that is illegal. That's not an emotional argument, but a legal one. Nothing to do with emotions, or business models, or whether "blacks have cash and can shop elsewhere." I don't care about them or their feelings. I care about my right to drink.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs The law that forces business do not discriminate is illegal under the constitution because it violates freedom of association. So it in fact is not legal as are many laws. Think critically. I bet you will find quite a few laws that violate a persons freedom of association. One that the left loves. Gay marriage and prostitution. Many laws are in fact unconstitutional. Drug wars. Think critically.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Not sure why you would even mention gay marriage and prostitution. Two things that should be legal but aren't due to the usurpation of people's civil rights. But the law is the law and we must follow it. Anyway marriage is retarded and most of them end in divorce which is legal so yeah it's pretty much a sham, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right to get married if they want. Just like I shouldn't be barred from drinking a beer based on my skin color.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Seriously, you don't know why I mentioned it? Freedom of association DUH! You do lack critical thinking skills.

Freedom to associate with another person gives you the right to marry who you like. It's really not the govs business. It also gives you the right to screw who you like even if that association is a commercial transaction. Freedom of association implies you also have the freedom to dissociate. You can use your head to see how that applies to discrimination.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Thing is, I'm not sure why you would even bring up marriage equality to bolster your argument in favor of legalizing discrimination. While there are laws that effectively legalize discrimination against homosexuals, in the future there will be regulations cancelling out these illegitimate laws. Just like there were regulations that cancelled out the laws making it legal for a bar owner to usurp my right to drink in his establishment because of my skin color. Regulation is good.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Seems the freedom to association/dissociation is lost on you. You can't have the right to associate without being able to also dissociate if you so choose.

You have no right to drink in my bar if I choose. The government has no right to discriminate since it represents us all. Private individuals or institutions do not share that obligation to represent us. Nor do you have the power to force association.

If you don't get it now. I am done. One can explain it only so many ways.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

My point is, you cannot prohibit me from drinking at your bar if you prohibit me based solely on my race. It's illegal. That is why regulations are so important, they protect responsible consumers and citizens like myself.

[mojine]

@amitbarfs

You are apparently incapable of reasoning. You have no RIGHT to drink in anyone's bar except your own. because. Legislation does not create rights. In fact, the overwhelming majority of ALL legislation destroys rights - including the right of freedom of association, which by its very nature includes the right of dissociation.

I'll be over for a drink in your kitchen later whether you like it or not! :-)

[amitbarfs]

@mojine

You realize you contradicted yourself? I have every right to drink in my neighborhood bar. In fact if the owner prohibits me based on my race, then my right to drink there is usurped. So you're either naive or just confused about where I stand.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

Like the song says, you gotta fight for your right to party.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs You have NO right to force relationships on individuals. Period.

Blacks can discriminate but whites can't in your world. The government can force private individuals and business to actively discriminate against white males in your world.

I don't believe in government forcing business to discriminate. That right lies with individuals. I also don't believe that government should discriminate since it should represent all individuals equally.

[Daniel44125]

@Daniel44125 People who support affirmative action are tyrants and hypocritical. People who support the United Negro College fund and Congressional Black Caucus are hypocrites for not also allowing others to partake in the same type of discrimination. Freedom of Association means you may be insulted and have your feelings hurt but it also means you have the right to discriminate as well. If freedom is used for insulting behavior you don't ban freedom. You convince behavior to change.

[Daniel44125]

@amitbarfs Legality is merely the will of tyrants in many cases. That includes forcing people how to think and behave for the sake of someone's feelings. Me dissociating with you does not violate your rights. Forcing me to associate with you violates mine. I would also add it also creates more hatred.

[amitbarfs]

@Daniel44125

lol

[Graffight]

yeah...executive orders really don't mean anything :o(

[jjrglobal]

Just more evidence of what the real Obama agenda is, bring America down to level the playing field with the rest of the world and eventually impose a one world government with a single currency

[dezldummi]

Tax Watch [posted on market watch]

April 7, 2011, 5:53 p.m. EDT

IRS goes after HSBC customers with money offshore

Feds ask court to force bank to name accounts in India

[freesk8]

Governments collude to fleece their people.

[dezldummi]

like our [Americas] pressure on Swiss banks to divulge information on US citizens?

[NebkadBible]

@dezldummi Great point!!!

[NebkadBible]

"If you're from Mexico you don't wanna put your money in a local bank or declared it to the tax authorities. Corruption in rampant and that information might be sold to criminal gangs who then kidnap one of you children"

I don't know whether this is an unintended contradiction, misinformation or ignorance on your part. I suggest you rethink the above quotation from your video.

[jjrglobal]

@NebkadBible

Whats contradictory about this statement?

[NebkadBible]

@jjrglobal To my mind, (1) it is corruption/crime to NOT declare your income, (2) Just because a government is alleged to be corrupt does NOT justify a citizen to be corrupt

Based on the above premise, it makes no sense that a Mexican should resort to crime/corruption on the basis of the governments' corruption and hence the gentleman on the video would OK such a move on the part of the citizen's of Mexico.

That's the contradiction I am referring to.

[Valamarth]

@NebkadBible Lying in order to avoid theft is not a crime. When an armed man asks where's your wife because he wants to kill her, lie is not an immoral behavior.

[NebkadBible]

@Valamarth Hahaaa.....where's the evidence that every Mexican's personal details are sold to criminal gangs. Besides, the video says "...information might be sold to criminal gangs who then kidnap..". The operative word there is MIGHT. Further, does the mere possession of a USA banking account imply that the person is worth more money to be of interest to such "criminal gangs"? Are you implying every hard working MExican sends his money to the USA? So, NO tax evasion is a CRIME!!

[Valamarth]

@NebkadBible I say tax collection is robbery :)

[NebkadBible]

@Valamarth And I say NOT all robberies are a crime ;)

E.g A robbery that is NOT a crime is ....tax collection A robbery IS a crime ...tax evasion.

[Valamarth]

@NebkadBible "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Check your philosophy, mate. Advocating violence is not the way to go in a peaceful society. I own my body (or am my body) therefore *I* own the fruit of my labour mixed with resources I acquired through voluntary exchange or homesteading. Mentioning "social contract" is a fallacy. "Government" granted itself a monopoly through legislation, and when there is a gun-enforced monopoly there can be no contract but slavery.

[Valamarth]

-- There's no freedom when only choice is obedience or a thug-raid and cage-confinement. Anticipating--saying "move to other country" is also a fallacy because "Government" does not acquire land through peaceful exchange nor homesteades it first and then invites citizens on clear legal basis, but just yells "Dibbs!". This is a big moral issue and a whole philosophical debate. Please, see eg. JacobSpinney and stefbot channels if you'd like to familiarize with it. Cheers!

[NebkadBible]

@Valamarth ---By the way I do not for a minute think every legal thing is just. I am all for justice. However, I also take cognizant of the fact that the world revolves around legality, just or not! Cheers.

[NebkadBible]

@Valamarth I think we both can agree that legality and justice are NOT the same thing. It is LEGAL that the government take (tax) your money, indeed by force but that doesn't mean it's actions are JUST. It may well be JUSTIFIED that you refuse to give your money (tax evasion) to the government, but that does NOT make your actions LEGAL.

[Valamarth]

@NebkadBible I get your point but "legality" is just other word for "obey or else because I/we/majority say so" - that's violence and that's what I argue. You focus on contradiction resulting from more deeply-rooted fallacy, I say: strike the root.

To recap, Legislation is not law. Again, if you'd be interested, I recommend Kinsella and Hoppe - good reads, also plenty of lectures with them on YT.