Not only does it show the flaw in statists’ beliefs when statists worry about who gets to v*te, but statism is full of contradictions that show the flaws in statism.
Property rights are the biggest, most obvious strike against any chance of logic in statism.
If you believe I should be forced– at gunpoint– to finance a gang you claim is needed to fight theft, you’ve made a fool of yourself.
If you believe it’s necessary to violate private property rights in order to protect property rights– through borders, “taxes”, etc., then you’ve testified against yourself.
But there are more problems.
If you believe you need a State/government to “defend freedom” by violating individual liberty, you’re not so brilliant. And if you buy A/Ru/dolph Giuliani’s steaming load claiming “freedom is about authority” then you might as well just get on the next shrimp boat to North Korea.
If you buy into the statist lie that drugs can destroy your life, so we need to impose prohibition so we have an excuse to kick your door down in the middle of the night, and murder your family and– if you survive– throw you in a cage, make it so you can’t get a job, and destroy your life, then you’ve admitted that you’re an idiot.
Statism is incompatible with ethics; statism is incompatible with life, liberty, and property; statism is incompatible with humanity. You can tell this just by looking at the claims statism makes and where it leads.
While I’ve spoken about this many times, it keeps coming up so I figured I would do a formal analysis. I’m well-aware this will have no impact on those who use this tactic to avoid discussion, such as lawyers and bureaucrats; this is for those who may be victims of this pernicious method of shouting down a valid argument. Ironically, as will be shown, it’s those screeching “frivolous” that are usually raising a truly frivolous argument. Yelling frivolous is a distraction technique, don’t be fooled by it.
Anyone who has ever challenged the legitimacy of government and the application of their sacred writ, called “laws,” will be familiar with this tactic. When the accuser admittedly has no evidence, they just start shouting “frivolous argument” as if that magically creates facts to support their claim.
What is a frivolous argument? There are usually two constants, it’s not just an argument lacking in merit or arbitrarily denied by a traffic court judge: “An appeal [argument] is not frivolous just because it has no merit” Applied Business Software, Inc. v. Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc., 164 Cal. App. 4th 1108, it must also be brought in bad faith:
“frivolous. So clearly and palpably bad and insufficient as to require no argument or illustration to show the character as indicative of bad faith upon a bare inspection…Strong v Sproul, 53 NY 497, 499.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., page 503.
Black’s Law Dictionary adds to this (also quoting Strong v Sproul):
“…where it does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent…” 4th Ed, page 796.
A frivolous argument has three elements:
doesn’t controvert the material points; and
is brought in bad faith.
Now let’s look at an argument I wrote that’s been labeled “frivolous” by an administrative law judge in California and see if it meets this criteria.
“…the legal claims made against me have no factual support, the FTB knows this, and is proceeding against me anyway.” The legal claim referenced is the claim the laws apply because the target of the assessment is physically in California or has a California source of money. The FTB argues their laws created an obligation, it’s a foundational claim.
We know this because several agents told us, this includes counsel for the FTB. When asked for the facts they relied on, they admittedly had nothing, counsel admitted this was an assumption (video below). Those are the facts my argument is based on, the argument follows directly from the facts.
1. Does the claim have merit? Yes; the FTB and IRS operate under the same presumption, they admit it; they claim their laws apply, gives them jurisdiction and creates obligations.
My argument is based on their admissions they don’t have evidence and don’t need evidence to support their claim. So with the FTB claim, where they admit they have no evidence and the foundation of their assessment is an assumption, there is solid factual support. Therefore, the argument is valid, it has merit because the facts support it.
The FTB and IRS are required to have evidence to support their assessments; lacking a foundational basis is referred to as a “naked assessment” to wit:
“The determination of tax due then may be one “without rational foundation and excessive,” and not properly subject to the usual rule with respect to the burden of proof in tax cases. Helvering v. Taylor, 293 US 507.” United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433.
The challenge is based on this principle, while my challenge is not spelled out in this or other cases I’m aware of, the legal principle is what’s relevant. The FTB’s assessment is “without rational foundation” by their own admissions.
The argument has merit because it is based on a sound legal principle, supported by the agents’ own admissions.
2. Does it “controvert the material points” made by the FTB or IRS? Yes; by their own admission they operate under the presumption the laws apply because you’re physically in California or have a California source of money; and by their own admission they have no evidence, it’s an assumption. It’s logical and consistent with the facts.
3. Is it brought in bad faith? No; it’s based on facts, and a sound legal principle that “controverts the material points” raised by the FTB or IRS. It’s a logically, legally, and factually consistent argument.
None of the three elements of a “frivolous argument” are present proving the argument is not frivolous; it may be wrong, but it’s not frivolous. It’s possible the facts as alleged are not true, but that is what a hearing is for, to determine if the alleged facts are true. In the above video you can hear the agent admit the assessment’s foundation, the applicability of the laws, is an assumption. An assumption is not a “rational foundation.”
If it’s obvious it’s not a frivolous argument, then why do tax agents and their lawyers (with and without black robes) insist it is and threaten thousands in sanctions? Because they have a vested interest in the system taking property by force (taxation). They are the ones raising an argument that has no rational foundation and is brought in bad faith. I’ve had tax agents claim they don’t need evidence. That’s frivolous, not pointing out their claim lacks factual support.
What they are really saying is just challenging their foundational claim is somehow a frivolous argument or calling out their frivolous argument is itself frivolous. That is proof of bad faith.
What they do is strawman the actual position claiming:
“Appellant’s inquiry is entirely nonsensical, and while we are unsure of the exact import of this statement, it appears to be based on the meritless contention that California does not have jurisdiction to impose a personal income tax on appellant.”
No, the contention is: the FTB admitted their foundational claim is the constitution applies because there was California source of money. When asked for evidence, they admittedly had none and agreed it was an assumption. We have never made the above claim, this is done to justify ignoring the actual issue. They know what the actual issue is because the “entirely nonsensical” argument is cited just before the above quote:
“Moreover, in her briefs, appellant states that she had previously contacted FTB staff and [FTB counsel] regarding the proposed assessments at issue, and that these individuals failed to provide evidence that the “constitution” applied to her.”
First, the claim is not “entirely nonsensical” it’s based on the FTB’s own admissions and used as an insult, they also use “legalistic gibberish.” What this administrative law judge really thinks is frivolous, is challenging the FTB’s claim the laws apply to appellant. Questioning the FTB’s legal claim is the frivolous argument to him. This cow is so sacred to this bureaucrat he’s threatening a five-thousand dollar sanction for just questioning it and pointing out it’s admittedly an assumption. Like the pope admitting he just assumes the gods are real and anyone quoting him is raising a frivolous argument. By the way, this is the same bureaucrat allowing the FTB to lie with impunity in their pleadings. No bias there I guess.
Some claim the courts have already ruled the argument frivolous for decades as if that changes anything, it doesn’t. Because just as this ALJ is wrong, so are the courts for the reasons above.
It must also be noted they are not addressing this actual argument in those cases, just like the ALJ does here. If you look at the cases, the frivolous arguments are all arguments of legal interpretation, not issues of fact. This ALJ cites Appeals of Dauberger (82- SBE-082) 1982, as support; the type of arguments included are: wages not income without meaning of statute, not a taxpayer within meaning of statute, federal reserve notes are not legal tender, and the Fifth Amendment prohibits the requirement to file a tax return. Not a single issue of fact cited as a frivolous argument.
If it’s truly frivolous to challenge this legal claim, then that’s proof the system is rigged. Irrefutable presumptions are unfair and violate due process because they cannot be challenged, there is no defense, even against an assumption, Vlandis v. Kline, 412 US 441. Yes, this is about legislative presumptions, but the principle of fairness is what is relevant because due process requires notice and opportunity to defend at a meaningful hearing, Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970).
It’s not a so-called “frivolous argument” to point out someone’s foundational claim is admittedly an assumption, it’s a statement of fact.
So when they start chanting frivolous, call them on it, ask them what makes an argument frivolous and not just wrong. Ask them to point out what part of the argument is false; because the underlying facts are not and since the conclusion is drawn directly from the facts, the conclusion is accurate.
The argument the FTB or IRS has failed to support their claim the constitution applies, has merit because 1) it is based on their own admissions, 2) it controverts material points because they admit to not having evidence, and 3) because it’s based on a sound legal principle and the FTB’s own admissions, there is no bad faith.
Regardless of the chants from lawyers and bureaucrats, the argument is not frivolous.
We all have our own likes and dislikes. This means everyone likes some things other people dislike; sometimes the likes and dislikes are passionate and the disagreements get rather heated.
There’s a secret trick I discovered, which seems to be unseen by most people; one which seems nearly impossible for them to even consider. Here it is, presented for (maybe) the first time you’ve ever heard it: It’s OK to dislike something without wanting a law to ban or control it.
It really is OK.
There are things I’m not a fan of; some things I dislike a lot. I don’t dare list my dislikes since such a list would offend just about everyone in some way. I can almost guarantee there are things on my list you like. Don’t worry. I have no wish to use laws to force you to change or stop doing what you like.
Most of the time I don’t want to make someone feel bad for liking something I don’t like. Even if they like something I think is ethically wrong there’s usually no point making an issue unless they want to make an issue.
As long as you aren’t violating anyone’s life, liberty or property, what you do is none of my business, even if I don’t like that you’re doing it.
When I was a youngster and was exposed to something I didn’t like, my first thought was along the lines of “They should make it illegal.” Such a childish mindset. I’m glad I’ve grown up in the years since then. I wish everyone would.
“For your own good” is not my style anymore. Nor is “but it’s offensive.”
Now when there’s something I don’t like I just don’t join in. If it’s bad enough I consider it unethical, I try to stay far away. I may let others know why I think it’s wrong and try to convince them to join me in avoiding it, but I’m probably not going to try to stop anyone from doing things I don’t like on their personal property. Not unless they are violating the rights of others — and I don’t mean offending them — by doing so.
Since there’s no such thing as a right to not be offended, we can all keep our offended feelings in our pockets where they belong. Let people like what they like and suggest they extend the same courtesy to everyone else.
I understand why some people habitually do evil things. They are self-centered and entitled and don’t care who they hurt while getting what they want. It’s not hard to see.
The same sort of thing goes for good people doing good things. They want to be a positive part of society; want to help people.
I can also understand why people who easily choose to do evil things sometimes do good things– it’s to their benefit. No one could survive long only doing evil things all the time.
But why do otherwise good people commit evil? How can they rationalize what they are doing?
“For good people to do evil things, it takes religion.” ~ Physicist Steven Weinberg.
No religion is more convenient for this purpose, or illustrates this fact better, than Statism.
It’s what causes good people to become cops and then start to commit evil acts as part of the “job”. It’s what causes good people to get a “job” with the IRS and start stealing property and ruining lives. It takes a belief that committing evil acts is OK under the circumstances, and is approved by the “higher power” flowing from the courthouse, city hall, the capital, or the bureaucracy. Or that this approval makes the act which would be evil otherwise not evil.
Statism is the most popular religion in the world. It usually comes before any other religion the believer may have. When combined with other religions it can become even worse– just look at the Muslim world, the old “Moral Majority”, or “Focus on the Family” if you have any doubt about this danger.
Don’t trust any belief which causes you to rationalize violating others “for their own good” or for society or for “the common good”. Do the right thing, even if you feel you could win approval and rewards by doing the wrong thing.
The better you understand something, the easier it is to notice when you’re being lied to. Plus, the less likely it is you’ll be fooled by the lies.
When I’m watching a movie and I see someone on screen starting a fire by randomly hitting rocks together and suddenly their campfire logs burst into flame I always think, “That’s not how it works!” Anyone who tries to light a fire this way isn’t going to end up with a fire unless someone else builds one for them.
The same thing happens when I hear a non-libertarian person or idea called “libertarian.” You can’t fool me, but those not as familiar with the core idea might accept the lie without question. For that matter, those spreading the lie may not realize they are lying.
How many people know “libertarian” refers only to those who understand no one has the right to use violence against anyone who isn’t currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another? My guess would be not many.
I also see this happen in debates about guns. Anti-gun activists are among the worst in this respect. Years ago a rabidly anti-gun politician was asked what a barrel shroud was since she was trying to get them banned. She said she wasn’t really sure but thought it might be the “shoulder thing that goes up.” Hint: It’s not.
It was obvious she hadn’t bothered to learn what she was trying to criminalize and didn’t even understand the basics of the English language. Knowledgeable people are still laughing at her.
If you’re trying to turn decent, everyday people into criminals by imposing a new law against objects, you could at least make an effort to learn the fundamentals of what you’re talking about. It would be a crime to destroy lives through your lazy legislative ignorance.
It’s usually helpful to know what you’re talking about before you start talking. Sure, you can use hyperbole for effect — unfortunately, humans respond to emotion better than to reason — but if you’re not even in the same hemisphere as reality, people familiar with the subject are going to notice and ridicule you.
When you catch someone lecturing on a topic they clearly don’t understand, pretending to know more than they do, point it out. You probably won’t change their minds, but you might help an onlooker learn enough to not fall prey to the lies being told.