no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Taxation is Theft: Elaine Brown Sentenced to Life in Prison

October 5th, 2009

In slave states like America, production is a crime which must be remedied by onerous taxation.  Defiance is met with extortion and violence.  Case-in-point: for the “crime” of not paying taxes Elaine Brown has been handed a sentence that amounts to “life in prison,” according to this post on

No matter how you slice it, in point of fact, Ed and Elaine Brown are guilty of either earning income (i.e., selling goods and.or services to people who voluntarily buy said goods and/or services) or owning/operating a corporation which does same. In reality, there are many millions of people who “don’t pay taxes” or don’t pay “their fair share”. These free-riders are variously: government employees, state-sponsored corporations (i.e., most if not all corporations), welfare victims, etc., all of whom produce nothing of any value, and therefore pay no net taxes.

The Browns, in literal point of fact, are guilty of producing. That is all.

Ed and Elaine Brown responded to the charges brought against them with “tax protester statutory arguments,” arguing in-short that the “government had not presented any law requiring them to pay income taxes.” There are a lot of statutory arguments, most of which fall under the IRS umbrella of “frivolous” defenses, which as far as I can tell means;

Many people find these defenses compelling, and we (the IRS) are sick of trying to respond to each of these defenses, therefore we label the lot of them ‘frivolous’ and deny defendants from appealing to basic human decency henceforth.

If the Brown’s statutory defense really were a sufficient defense, the government would simply draft and approve a law which required people to pay taxes on their individual wage-incomes. The flaw in the Brown’s argument is that they concede that “if there were a law” they would abide it. .

In the comments on Infowars, there are a lot of commenters saying that a tax on income is legal, as long as it’s not a tax on wages. The repeat the lie that a tax on corporate income is perfectly legit. Pore through 600 stupid comments debating the “legality” of robbery, if you want to get dizzy, for example:

Some people just don’t know the law…There is tax. Only on Corporate/Business Income. Tax on personal labor wages IS ILLEGAL

To the rest of You: Give it up, brush up on your pocket Constitution.

You, sir, are exactly wrong.

For the record, it doesn’t matter whether a tax on wages is “legal” because as a rule, the various taxes on wage-income are handled as though they are legal and case law has been adjudicated in such a manner as to render impotent the “statutory” defenses like those raised by the Browns. So it doesn’t matter if they’re “legal” or not, the law has proven powerless to uphold itself.

The only appropriate tax rate is zero, and the only real argument is not whether income taxes are “legal” but rather, whether they are proper.

No man in his individual capacity would be justified in extracting “taxes” from any other man. And what would not be tolerated of any man ought not be tolerated of any men.

I submit, therefore, that taxes are not proper, and that taxation really is theft, the substantive difference (as the saying goes) is that the thief doesn’t pretend to have your best interests in mind when he robs you.



  • CaB says on: October 6, 2009 at 1:51 am



  • ZJS says on: October 6, 2009 at 1:25 pm


    You hear about the new chip that the governement is trying to mandate to put into every car that basically shut downs your cell phone while you're in the car. Looks like another tax. When will it end?

    • Don says on: October 6, 2009 at 2:16 pm


      While you're IN the car (proximity switch) or when the car is running?
      Either way, the system must be able to detect when there is an active cellphone within a prescribed distance of the mechanism. People are already working on ways to block the system or render it inoperative. But of course the gov't will demand that any means that circumvents the system will be illegal and punishable by some outrageous penalty like 20 years in jail and a $500,000 fine, to keep herd members terrified.

    • nothirdsolution says on: October 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm


      one more reason to keep buying used cars without said chips…

  • Don says on: October 6, 2009 at 2:10 pm


    I'm going to spread the criminal web out a little bit farther.
    Take a good long look at this sentence from David's post:
    *the government had not presented any law*

    What does that mean to you?

    To me it means thug rule, or no rule at all.
    How is it possible to play the *game* when there are no set rules?
    Or better yet, when your opponent, faceless droids in distant lands that ignore past rules and make new rules in their favor as they go along.
    How do you deal with people, or droids, when the chance of your winning is reduced to zero?
    Now understand that you MUST play the game.

    In the year 2000 I was accused by an anonymous person on the web with the email address: of a crime within my website. This person filed a complaint with the state authorities whom prosecuted me of this crime even though there was no evidence that a crime had been committed and in fact no crime had been committed. I hired an expensive attorney and the court battle lasted almost 4 years and in the end I was found guilty of a crime I had not committed and there was no proof at all had been committed. I never met the accuser nor the people that prosecuted me as they were 300 miles away and my presence was never required in any of the proceedings. My penalty for not committing any crime but having been convicted of doing so? A $5,000.00 fine and an invoice from my attorney for $13,000.00 and publicly labeled as a criminal for the rest of my life.

    This jaded me greatly, more than most people can imagine.
    So, to the point that I gave up on everything and turned my back on society and now live in the woods. I own nothing and want nothing but to be left alone….until I die.

    Beware. You too can be accused of a crime. In the beginning I thought I was fortunate that I at least had the financial resources to defend myself, and was under the assumption that right will prevail.
    Silly me, it wasn't a matter of right and wrong, other than being in the right place at the wrong time. If you seek justice you seek it in vain and if you receive justice you receive it in luck.

    You are surrounded by criminals, everywhere.

  • Brad says on: October 6, 2009 at 3:13 pm


    It's things like this that build up a great level of rage against "the man" for me. I feel the day is getting ever closer where I lose it and go off the handle.

    I can only think of two ways to abolish the IRS and the theft the government participates in.

    Idea 1: Vote for a Presidential candidate who was going to eliminate the IRS.
    Did that last year but the message did not get out fast enough to the general population.

    Idea 2: Have every entire American citizen to stop paying or filing taxes. Wouldn't they have to arrest everybody? The system would implode instantly. I don't know of a jail big enough to house every American citizen.

    • Matt says on: October 8, 2009 at 8:01 pm


      I think eliminating automatic withholding would go a long way. If Ordinary Joe had to write a check to Uncle Sam every month people would be a lot more interested in where their money is going.

      I think that's as likely to happen as your first two suggestions though.

  • Dude says on: October 6, 2009 at 11:45 am


    Armageddon in 4 days. . .

  • Lajocanda says on: October 6, 2009 at 4:01 pm


    Taxation without representation is theft, and since we haven't BEEN properly represented in a VERY long time, then it is INDEED theft. Taxes that pay for illegal war and slaughter are heinous. However, taxes for the purposes of providing for the COMMON GOOD and the GENERAL WELFARE are necessary, and if one can say that they do no harm (as in the Medical profession) then I would argue they are fundamentally obligatory. For one cannot provide for the common good and the general welfare without them. HOWEVER, I would say that INCOME taxes are a poor way of doing that. I would suggest that we tax THINGS, and not people. VAT taxes, property and consumption taxes are an appropriate way of providing for infrastructure and minimal defense. Income tax I agree should be abolished. But first let's abolish WAR, which consumes more than HALF of all our taxes anyway!

    • nothirdsolution says on: October 6, 2009 at 4:18 pm


      There is no such thing as a tax that does no harm.

    • Don says on: October 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm


      You are under the delusion of a flawed premise.
      All theft is wrong regardless of the reason and all taxation is theft.

      Eliminate the theft and you will eliminate the war.

  • Dvishnu says on: October 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm


    With all due respect Lagocanda, ALL TAXATION meets the definition of theft… The COMMON GOOD and the GENERAL WELFARE don't need governments for survival… In fact, governments are detrimental to both… Governments are good at two things, control and enslavement… Governments don't build or produce diddley squat… People do… AND there is also a moral issue here… Should a product or service be provided at the threat of violence?

    If government services were so awesome and great, then why not offer them to the public in a truly free market, so that they're competing with other businesses offering the same services?

    I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but it seems to me that people have the ability to organize a network of businesses that could offer every service that government offers and the customer can be free to choose, or not to choose which network he/she prefers…. In addition, the competition for these services would help keep prices down….

    I believe if you research Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs), you'll develop a much better idea as to how this can be achieved…

  • Sovereign Man says on: October 6, 2009 at 5:56 pm


    Taxes are theft and are therefor criminal, however they are constitutional. The fourteenth amendment article four states, that citizens shall pay the debt, and not question the validity of it. So if you are a citizen shut up and pay up, your master will not tolerate back talk and will crush all subjects guilty of insurrection.

    However government could be funded by taking over the central bank, known as the FED, and placing it in the rightful hands of the people of the states. Which would allow the FED to print the interest money owed on loans by private sector borrowers; and credit it to the federal, state, county, and city governments creating a completely voluntary funding system.

    By the way citizenship is voluntary, all men are born free; and most join any association by their own free will. 13th amendment for all you CON-stitutionalists

  • dvishnu says on: October 6, 2009 at 8:47 pm


    The ONLY time that George W. Bush and i are in is when he called the US constitution a "g**damn piece of paper."

  • Dvishnu says on: October 6, 2009 at 8:49 pm


    The ONLY time that George W. Bush and I are in agreement is when he called the US constitution a "g**damn piece of paper."

    He was RIGHT…..

  • Lajocanda says on: October 7, 2009 at 4:08 pm


    Well folks, I guess if you're an anarchist then government is not necessary and inherently evil. I guess I never heard of a common good or a general welfare anywhere on this planet without SOME FORM of government to coordinate services, whether it be tribal, city, state, or national. And taxes are NOT the reason we're at war now, RESOURCES are. The only time we were at war over taxes is during the Revolutionary War, and that was to free ourselves of a burden being imposed by a monarchy that didn't provide for the COMMON GOOD or the GENERAL WELFARE. I guess that's why the Founding Fathers put it into our Constitution. Too many countries are NOT at war whose citizens pay far more in taxes than we do and are happy to do it, like Sweden, Norway and Denmark for example. They provide for the common good and general welfare of ALL their people and don't have to wage endless war to do it.

    • nothirdsolution says on: October 7, 2009 at 5:56 pm


      I guess if you're an anarchist then government is not necessary and inherently evil

      It has nothing to do with whether one is an anarchist. Any organization that relies 100% on violence is necessarily evil. Whether you choose to fully examine the morality of how a government operates, is of course, up to you.

      I never heard of a common good or a general welfare anywhere on this planet without SOME FORM of government to coordinate services

      You haven't tried very hard.

      I never heard of a common good or a general welfare anywhere on this planet without SOME FORM of government to coordinate services

      Nobody's suggested that the U.S. is waging imperialist wars in order to provide their citizens with "General Welfare". So, this argumnet is kind of a red herring, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about above.

  • tehR says on: October 7, 2009 at 6:15 pm


    As a fan of Thomas Hobbes, and a believer in the path of least resistance in humanity – i.e., all people will inherently seek to take advantage wherever and whenever possible – the "necessarily evil" violence to which you refer is a necessary "evil;" if you happen to believe in things like "good" and "evil."

    To me, this kind of ultimate authority precludes a state of nature. Of course, in the end, this all boils down to one's philosophical/moral groundings.

  • Dvishnu says on: October 7, 2009 at 6:25 pm


    Lajocanda said "Well folks, I guess if you're an anarchist then government is not necessary and inherently evil. I guess I never heard of a common good or a general welfare anywhere on this planet without SOME FORM of government to coordinate services, whether it be tribal, city, state, or national."

    That's because you have a group of individuals who are addicted to the great wealth and power that comes from imposing the ultimate monopoly on it's perceived "subjects", AND in order to protect that monopoly, they will use a combination of force and the threat of force in tandem with the power of mass communications in order to manipulate popular opinion 24/7….

    Scandinavian "authorities" are no different… They also use force, or the threat of force in order to extract great wealth from it's citizens…

    I guess the question would be "ARE THEIR SERVICES BETTER?" The answer is COMPARED TO WHAT? The US? The answer on many levels (but not all) would probably be yes…. But so what! Norway, Sweden and Denmark operate their own monopolies… There is no COMPETITION… Therefore, there is little incentive to improve services, not to mention any appreciable incentive to make them economically viable…. But these "states" acknowledge one general incentive…. If you're paying 60 percent of your income to the "state", then there damn well better be some type of return or else there will be a massive public revolt… So the public gets back a slight return which doesn't come near their initial investment… Unfortunately, most people think that's the only way to provide services in a large way… That is simply not true….

    The US on the other hand, has a much smaller income "tax"… But that is rather deceiving, because if you include excise and other hidden taxes, then the average bite per "citizen" exceeds 60 percent…

    Government and the mafia operate in the same way, except the mafia won't forcibly vaccinate my kids, nor will they tell me how to educate my children…

    The truth of the matter is that services CAN be provided voluntarily, AND with free competition, prices WILL drop dramatically….

    This is really a moral issue… It comes down to this question… You have to ask yourself if a product or service should be provided at the threat of violence……

  • Rich says on: October 8, 2009 at 1:01 pm


    I agree with the constitutional arguments that are imputed to Ed Brown's defense in the tax case, and I believe that the courts should be (and are not) a fair and neutral venue for trying t he facts and the law. I arrived here after reading decisions of the supreme court and attempting several times to assert and make my rights effective in local courts.

    But there is danger in hero worship such as has always accompanied discussions of the Browns' tax trial. For one thing, forming an armed group and assembling in a fortified position, as they did, is an invitation to violent confrontation.

    If that is the choice they made, okay, then that's their choice (and the choice of the people who joined them voluntarily), but then , what is the purpose of making the constitutional argument at trial? Doing either one or the other seems to indicate a lack of commitment, wouldn't you say?
    I understand that some may take this to be hostile to teh cause of freedom as they see it, but it is not. The choice to arm yourself and join a group to take on the federal government at arms is about as serious as you can get. Therefore, it is not prudent to do so without fully appreciating the philosophy and principles behind it.

    I think that the unifying theme of Ed Brown's group was not simply freedom or anarchy, but rather a different thing altogether,

    The danger in embracing the whole for the sake of a single element (however attractive and just) of it is obvious. You could, if successful, empower or create something just as abhorrent as what you replace. I would find a religious tyranny not much better than the current system, just in case that' what he was thinking :)

    • nothirdsolution says on: October 8, 2009 at 7:11 pm


      the "fortified position" was their house.

      "Doing either one or the other seems to indicate a lack of commitment, wouldn't you say? " I'd agree. If you want to take the "Constitution" approach, you'd be better served to simply submit to the trial and take your chances with the jury. Otherwise, you're (at the very least) inviting the host of additional charges such as "threatening a federal agent" etc., which ultimately played a large role in determining the length of the sentence.

      • Rich says on: October 9, 2009 at 11:01 pm


        Actually the additional charges are the direct cause of the additional sentences.
        Brown stated a legal argument (maybe that's the 'constitution' approach to which you refer) and then he abandoned it. That's a lack of commitment or seriousness. My criticism is simply that he did not undertake it honestly. The other possibility is that he lost his nerve (not hard to believe if you have ever been behind the defense table in a federal court) – but understanding what it takes to do that it would is an essential element of 'taking it on'.

        The armed friends and fellow travelers who offered to resist (physically) their arrest and the show of arms indicates that Brown would have preferred this type of contest. Maybe he, or his friends changed their minds about that – I would not say that it indicates any particular lack of courage to exercise that option either – just that, having taken the position, then abandoning it, shows the same lack of seriousness – if you will.

        That is why he (Brown invited 'a host of additional charges' – because he took the stand. I maintain that if he were serious about his constitutional challenge of the law, he could have and would have prepared better (there are experienced people who could have helped him and probably offered to) and stood by his arguments, instead of failing to make his appearances after some adverse rulings – which he did.

        Starting a case like this, you must know (and if he had read anything of this line of case he would know) thatteh most likely chance for any kind of victory is in teh appeals/review process, not in the court of the first instance. His actions were damaging to his own cause and again – showed a lack of conviction. Andn if you want to geta ajury or any person to judge you to be innocent of a crime, you must admit that it is necessary for them to know your honesty and integrity. Not a good showing at all…

        On the other hand, if you are bent on a destructive course for want of character or through fear, ignorance – or you are just so beaten down from fighting for your cause hat you haven't got the wherewithal for a serious fight – your friends and counsel should assist ou in finding the path of least resistance or least pain to resolve the issue. In this case, it probably would have been to bend over and make a deal with the US Attorney.

        Still, the other option – to shoot it out with the fed cops, should the merit of that appeal to you – is always available.

        All I'm saying is that he made some poor choices and I suppose his friends – who hyped him up for the fight which they were ill-prepared to undertake, ultimately let him down and handed a huge PR victory to teh statists.

        Nice fucking going!

  • Lajocanda says on: October 8, 2009 at 5:26 pm


    Then we must dealing with a horse of a different color here. Perhaps we need to look at alternate ways of organizing society that are less centralized and more localized, with a local system for collecting DUES (?) for the common good and general welfare.

    Nothing in this life is ever strictly voluntary, we MUST organize to socialize a consciously humane and spiritual civilization that provides for the common good and the general welfare, otherwise life really is pointless and not worth living. The CREATOR of this world MUST be included in some way for there to be reciprocity (we are partners with Him in the process of creating a civilization worth living in).

    CIVIL-ization is EVERYONE's business. I have a link to a site that may offer some insights into a possible future scenario:

    Walden Three, rational, sustainable, luxurious, car-free, cities of the future

    With all due respect, I hope we all find the kind of civilization we seek that makes being here
    worthwhile. May God assist in that endeavor. End Trans.

    • nothirdsolution says on: October 8, 2009 at 7:15 pm


      Nothing in this life is ever strictly voluntary

      I'm sorry for you, it must be one hell of a painful existence. Do you have a boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife? If so, wouldn't you constitute your relationship with one another as "strictly voluntary"? How about your friends and co-workers? Aren't those relationships "strictly voluntary"?

      The freedom about which I'm principally writing, is the freedom to not associate with people who refuse to treat one another voluntarily and as equals. Insofar as man *must* organize, I still reject the premise that these organizations (and hence, the viability of the human species) depends in any critical fashion on violence and coercion, rather than voluntariness, compassion, and community.

    • Don says on: October 9, 2009 at 7:51 pm


      Lajocanda – collecting DUES

      WTF is wrong with you?

  • Don says on: October 8, 2009 at 9:24 pm


    The theft starts when an employee at your job STEALS the money right out of your paycheck before you even get it.

    If you want to thwart the theft you must start at that point by doing work where that doesn't happen, ie., become self employed.

    But your job doesn't end there for the master thief is very cunning, but he is also very lazy.

    You too can learn how to stay several steps in front of the master thief and his legion of vicious drones.

    Fortunately for you, the master thief and its drones are all very stupid and lazy AND they do not have the resources to carefully screen all 300,000,000 of its intended slaves.

    Its even probable, if you are of the cunning nature, to not only thwart the master thief but to also use its rules against it to recognize a net gain from its myriad of rules.

    (when the rules get tougher the people get sneakier)

    You will never be wealthy, or happy, and your family will endlessly suffer if you continue to fear the master thief and abide by its endlessly encumbering rules.

    Refuse to be a slave, do what you have to do to survive and thrive outside the rules.

    They have no RIGHT to have any say at all over anything to do with your life, period.

    This is the only life you will ever have, live it like you mean it.

    Or cower in fear, your choice.

    It starts with you.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics