• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Author of Shiva's Messenger

nyse

New Member
Hi all.

I've always been an avid reader of many genres. Then about two years ago I wrote my first novel - Shiva's Messenger. My second - Loki's Trojan, should be ready for publishing soon.

I've joined this forum to self-promote, but it fits too because I care far more about what readers think of my work, than I do about reviewers.

I'm happy to recieve questions or comments and I intend to occasionally add my opinions on some other books too.

Russell Twyce
 
Impossible. You agreed to the forum's conditions that prohibit self-promotion.

I see that you're a senior moderator, so I imagine you've actually read the rules. I only ever just tick off the box claiming that I read them. Actually, I believe that perusing terms and conditions would be about as thrilling as studying the small print on a deoderant can whilst seated on the toilet.

I see that my 'nyse' username is also a flagrant breach of protocol. It just stands for my middle initials- 'Norman Yarrow Stanley Edmond'. Those, plus my first and last names might be somewhat excessive for a handle.

On the subject of 401k's, it's a crime for a government to tax its citizens unless the money is given voluntarily--it yours offered freely? If so, why do you need to fill out a form asking permission to keep a little bit for your furture use?
 
On the subject of 401k's, it's a crime for a government to tax its citizens unless the money is given voluntarily--it yours offered freely? If so, why do you need to fill out a form asking permission to keep a little bit for your furture use?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't have to fill out a permission form. I allow my company to take x% of my paycheck and hand it over to Fidelity for them to manage my funds. The Man only steps in when I want to access my funds.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't have to fill out a permission form. I allow my company to take x% of my paycheck and hand it over to Fidelity for them to manage my funds. The Man only steps in when I want to access my funds.

Nevermind, the general issue of income taxation is only one of my highly contentious opinions. People should NOT be taxed at all. Income tax is not necessary: it is only in force to allow a government to keep the serfs (supposedly citizens) under an oppressing thumb. However, this is hardly a subject to be discussed in a light-hearted welcome thread.
 
Nevermind, the general issue of income taxation is only one of my highly contentious opinions. People should NOT be taxed at all. Income tax is not necessary: it is only in force to allow a government to keep the serfs (supposedly citizens) under an oppressing thumb. However, this is hardly a subject to be discussed in a light-hearted welcome thread.

Tell me, oh enlightened one, how a tax-free society in the 21st Century could actually work. Do I get a flying car and a house in the sky in your fantasy land?
 
Tell me, oh enlightened one, how a tax-free society in the 21st Century could actually work. Do I get a flying car and a house in the sky in your fantasy land?

That sounds brilliant. Sign me up! Also, I want a stilt-walking giraffe and a giant bucket of bees.
 
Tell me, oh enlightened one, how a tax-free society in the 21st Century could actually work.

It would work just fine and naturally. Your sarcastic quip without any pre-thought towards broadening your mind isn't encouraging though. Have you bought that solidly into the 'inevitable as death and taxes' propoganda?

Forget for a second whether a government could function effectively without the massive amounts of money it steals and concider only the basic principle of why a nation taxes. It does so to enforce a false notion that you are owned by the land. You are a slave. What right does any entity have to arbitrarily take from a free person? The answer is none. The government doesn't have the right to tax--it only has the self-granted power to do so, and that is backed up with armed might. You are a slave and you live in an occupied country.

I realize that a democratic government (if one actually existed) would need revenues to operate but there are much better sources that would actually benefit the citizens--if anyone truly cared about them.
 
You are a slave and you live in an occupied country.


I don't think there is a conspiracy to oppress us. It's simply that I think there is a better way. At one time, people believed that the world was flat. There wasn't a secret society to inspire the incorrect assumption, people just thought that, based on limited knowledge. Eventually, a better understanding evolved.

I see the same as true for the current geo-political structures. Some can glimpse a better system, but it hasn't been fully explored and discussed yet. Yes, we are still living as serfs in an outgrowth of the fuedal system. Someday, I'm certain public chafing at their slavery will force transformation to real democracy and a system of true justice.
 
It would work just fine and naturally. Your sarcastic quip without any pre-thought towards broadening your mind isn't encouraging though. Have you bought that solidly into the 'inevitable as death and taxes' propoganda?

Forget for a second whether a government could function effectively without the massive amounts of money it steals and concider only the basic principle of why a nation taxes. It does so to enforce a false notion that you are owned by the land. You are a slave. What right does any entity have to arbitrarily take from a free person? The answer is none. The government doesn't have the right to tax--it only has the self-granted power to do so, and that is backed up with armed might. You are a slave and you live in an occupied country.

I realize that a democratic government (if one actually existed) would need revenues to operate but there are much better sources that would actually benefit the citizens--if anyone truly cared about them.

No, I am really, truly curious how your world without taxes would work. Obviously you realize that there are things in a land that do require money to make happen. Where would the revenue necessary for the operation of any government come from?

I work, I pay taxes, and from my tax dollars I get police officers that catch the bad guys, a fire department that saves my house when it catches fire, trash collection, a working sewage system, roads that are built and maintained so I can go to places I need, courts to interpret the laws of the land, and countless other things. I am glad to have all of these services and more for what I am paying in taxes.


You are a slave.

I don't think there is a conspiracy to oppress us. It's simply that I think there is a better way. At one time, people believed that the world was flat. There wasn't a secret society to inspire the incorrect assumption, people just thought that, based on limited knowledge. Eventually, a better understanding evolved.

I see the same as true for the current geo-political structures. Some can glimpse a better system, but it hasn't been fully explored and discussed yet. Yes, we are still living as serfs in an outgrowth of the fuedal system. Someday, I'm certain public chafing at their slavery will force transformation to real democracy and a system of true justice.

It's considered poor form to quote yourself. The preferred method is to edit your initial post.
 
I work, I pay taxes, and from my tax dollars I get police officers that catch the bad guys,

Bad guys? The law created those 'bad guys' with your tax dollars and you have to double spend when you must pay again to have them rounded up as well. "Without laws, there could be no criminals." That quote may sound like a trick connundrum, but it does make logical sense.

A law prohibiting someone's harming you does NOT protect you because before the law can act, the deed against you must be done. Law acts only in retaliation. So the tax money you pay for the police to protect you, in theory, is to actually protect someone else--but unfortunately, they aren't protected either, for the same reason that you weren't.

The problem is that law isn't designed to protect anyone. It is only concerned with preserving it's own sanctimonious self. The 'Rule of Law' is a crime against humanity.

Law CAN be fixed to actually serve people, but before that can happen, people have to look clearly at the real issues and debate them.

a fire department that saves my house when it catches fire, trash collection, a working sewage system, roads that are built and maintained so I can go to places I need, courts to interpret the laws of the land, and countless other things.

I know that we need (almost) all those things. ('courts to interpret the laws of the land' -- is a slavery issue but discussing it here is unecessary). We need a government to have revenue to do many other things too that you didn't mention.

However, we need the government to be a 'Public Servant' (as they already erroniously purport themselves to be). One way to bring the government onto the people's side, is to change HOW the necessary revenues are collected.

I am glad to have all of these services and more for what I am paying in taxes.
Wouldn't it also be better to have a government actually solving the other problems like; poverty, inflation, global warming, homelessness, pollution, war, terrorism, eliminating crime, --and many more? The current government can't address these problem, because they are a major contributer in CAUSING them all. (No, I'm not suggesting any conspiracy. The problem is that society is trying to keep a bad system working and people are turning a blind eye to all the possible solutions.)

No, I am really, truly curious how your world without taxes would work.

Are you really curious? or was that phrase just a segue into a harangue?
 
Bad guys? The law created those 'bad guys' with your tax dollars and you have to double spend when you must pay again to have them rounded up as well. "Without laws, there could be no criminals." That quote may sound like a trick connundrum, but it does make logical sense.

It may make logical sense but it is utterly ridiculous in any setting that involves more than one person. You're saying that a rapist or a thief is only a criminal because rape and stealing are against the law?

A law prohibiting someone's harming you does NOT protect you because before the law can act, the deed against you must be done. Law acts only in retaliation. So the tax money you pay for the police to protect you, in theory, is to actually protect someone else--but unfortunately, they aren't protected either, for the same reason that you weren't.

Laws state what you can and cannot do. If you break the law then you are penalized. Would you rather people be penalized for thinking about committing crimes instead of actually following through with the deed?


The problem is that law isn't designed to protect anyone. It is only concerned with preserving it's own sanctimonious self. The 'Rule of Law' is a crime against humanity.

The 'Rule of Law' is a better alternative to anarchy.


Law CAN be fixed to actually serve people, but before that can happen, people have to look clearly at the real issues and debate them.

Such as?



I know that we need (almost) all those things. ('courts to interpret the laws of the land' -- is a slavery issue but discussing it here is unecessary). We need a government to have revenue to do many other things too that you didn't mention.

So where would this revenue come from?


However, we need the government to be a 'Public Servant' (as they already erroniously purport themselves to be). One way to bring the government onto the people's side, is to change HOW the necessary revenues are collected.

How would this revenue be collected?


Are you really curious? or was that phrase just a segue into a harangue?

If I didn't want to actually know, I would have said something like: Damn son, that's some primo shit you're smoking. Where can I score some?

So, I'm listening.
 
It may make logical sense but it is utterly ridiculous in any setting that involves more than one person. You're saying that a rapist or a thief is only a criminal because rape and stealing are against the law?
Oddly enough he (or she) is only a 'criminal' because of the law. 'Rape' and 'stealing' are definitions of actions that are prohibited. If those laws didn't exist to be broken, the terms couldn't be applied. This is NOT just somantic! In many cases, a person will commit a proscribed action only because it IS versus the law, and he is making a political statement against the law.

Irregardless of whether it's a 'crime' or not, a society needs to protect its weaker members from 'wrongful acts' such as forced sex and pilfering private property. The key in this statement is 'to protect', law is utterly incapable of doing that. (Law doesn't even try.) So, let's talk about better methods of achieving protection--it would be easy to establish a protective justice system that didn't rely on the slavery principles of 'rules and punishments'.

Laws state what you can and cannot do. If you break the law then you are penalized. Would you rather people be penalized for thinking about committing crimes instead of actually following through with the deed?

Focus here on 'punishment'. A land-owning lord also has the deed to the serfs who dwell on the land. This fuedal aristocrat has the authority to punish or even kill, anyone who breaks his rules--regardless of how selfish or trivial these might be. How does the law (of the land) differ? It doesn't. I'm not a slave, (you shouldn't be either) and nobody, including a concept of nationhood concieved by some fat, bald and now long dead politicians, has the authority to tell me what I can or cannot do, when my self-owned body is capable of performing the function.

If the concepts of 'protection' and 'rehabilitation' are inserted in lieu of 'punishment', then a model for achieving good societal order that doesn't tread on basic human rights, becomes doable.

The 'Rule of Law' is a better alternative to anarchy.
Anarchy is 'no government' and I certainly don't promote that. I believe in democracy and I'd love to see us achieve that form of governance by the majority. (Unfortunately, it currently doesn't exist anywhere).

The 'Rule of Law' is NOT a better alternative to anything. The 'Rule of Law' is the root cause of many or most of our societal problems.

The fact that you automatically equated 'Rule-of-Law' with 'anarchy' is a function of your societal conditioning. People find it difficult to think clearly about the foundations of law because society doesn't want you to. (Even though it would be in societies best interests to explore the truth.)

In your deepest knowledge, you know that the law only offers some (anciliary) protection--if everyone believes in it, so you mouth your support for it. But nobody else truly thinks that the law or anyone has the right to tell them what to do--criminals certainly don't or they wouldn't flout the law. Why does your own foot sometimes get heavy on your gas pedal, if you believe so fully in the law as you say that you do?

The underpinning logical theory supporting the 'rule of law' is incorrect (and illogical). Nobody really has to do what they are told. Why should we continue with the sham? I suggest that it's time to start discussing a workable alternative to the 'Rule of Law'. It would be best to start thinking about it before the fiction of law critically fails and falls utterly.
So where would this revenue come from?

How would this revenue be collected?

From exactly where it comes from now--but with a huge difference.

You probably don't actually 'pay' taxes now. Your employer withholds the money from your wages and the company remits the collected funds to the Government. The biggest problem with that tax system is that in its theory, the government is arbitrarily stealing from the citizen's pay. The revenue agency then snoops further into the citizen's personal finances with a requirement for forms and declarations. Why? Does the government feel threatened by improprieties in a family's finances?

The same revenues could be collected from the very same 'source', but instead of being an 'income tax' on individuals, it might be an 'employment tax' on companies/corporations owed for the benefit the business derives from the labor of the citizen. The business pays, (as it already does now), but the company's accountants are also responsible for filling out the necessary government forms too.

An instant benefit would be to swing the revenue agency's scrutiny from the individual (where trhere is minimal threat anyways), and into the ledgers of business (where the main improprieties can be anticipated) instead. Imagine what might have ensued (or not taken place) if this system was in place before the World Com and Enron debacles. The public servants would actually be serving the public--instead of being their oppressors.

If I didn't want to actually know, I would have said something like: Damn son, that's some primo shit you're smoking. Where can I score some?

So, I'm listening.
Our so called 'sophisticated' society is smoking banana skins. People are looking at a buck-assed naked emporer and saying 'what beautiful clothes he is wearing'.

In the current reality, can you imagine any possible cure for the problems of homelessness, crime, global warming, terrorism, et al? Is the only presented solution pushing civilization even further into a police state? Don't you think that installing more draconian measures might bring even worse problems?

Opening up clear eyes to examine what is really true shouldn't be frightening and it isn't. A much better path to our future still exists and it really looks good to me.
 
How would you punish a rapist or a murderer if the crime hasn't been committed yet?


Regarding the issue of taxes, if I so desired, I could have my employer withhold zero dollars for taxes and entrust myself to make sure that, when tax time cometh, I have the funds necessary to pay my owed taxes. I choose not to do this because it is easier to let The Man hold on to it.

For what it's worth, I am in favor of a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax.

I see that you recognize the need for a tax yet that is not what you said initially.

Nevermind, the general issue of income taxation is only one of my highly contentious opinions. People should NOT be taxed at all. Income tax is not necessary: it is only in force to allow a government to keep the serfs (supposedly citizens) under an oppressing thumb. However, this is hardly a subject to be discussed in a light-hearted welcome thread.

I ask you again, how can a government be supported without tax revenue?
 
How would you punish a rapist or a murderer if the crime hasn't been committed yet?
Firstly, take the 'punishment' from the equation. The goal isn't to punish, but rather to 'prevent' a reoccurrence, 'rehabilitate' if possible, or in the very best case, to 'protect' both the victim AND the victimizer from harms that would happen to BOTH should the wrongful event take place. No, you can't predict all, but where people realize that the authority is ACTUALLY trying to help, more may be less afraid of coming forward.

However, I'll give a good example of where a proactive social justice system would prevent a crime. Where an abusive spouse poses a threat, the rule-of-law won't do a bloody thing until it feels ITSELF broken. A system that truly cared about people could've, should've and would've acted in time to prevent.

Your question here seems to presuppose that the 'accused' would suffer some ill effects from being so marked before a 'crime'. Keep in mind though, that the concept of 'punishment' needs to be eliminated before real justice like this can be done. A humiliating and hurtfull process of public media disgrace and lawyers cleaning out his/her bank accounts isn't what 'justice' and 'protection' should entail either.

The adversarial trial format is patently rediculous. The flip of a coin to determine guilty or not, would be as effective and far less costly. (Look up who and what the ancient greek 'Sophists' were and compare that to what barristers are today. This will also show you why I scoff the term 'Sophisticated Society'. We are duped into believing this illogical system can actually work--when it can't.) In a much better court process, there should never be absolute 'yes' or 'no' verdicts. Some protective and rehabilitative measures should always be employed--away from the gossiping public's prurient eyes. There isn't a galley at your visits to a doctor and there shouldn't be one in a hall of justice either. Speaking of which, medicare looks after people (except in the States) and a form of justice-care should handle the costs--equitably. (No more O.J. and Micheal jackson dream teams either.)

Regarding the issue of taxes, if I so desired, I could have my employer withhold zero dollars for taxes and entrust myself to make sure that, when tax time cometh, I have the funds necessary to pay my owed taxes. I choose not to do this because it is easier to let The Man hold on to it.

For what it's worth, I am in favor of a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax.

I see that you recognize the need for a tax yet that is not what you said initially.?
I haven't backed down on my statement. People shouldn't be taxed!

People are NOT slaves. Conversely, corporate entities ARE slaves. They were created not with flesh, blood and souls, but rather with paper laws, mental concepts and (dare I say) greed. Non-human entities CAN be taxed without breaking a human's birthright of freedom.

The system I suggested in my last post outlined a way to convert 'income tax' into an 'employment tax' that the company pays. The net dollar value doesn't even appreciably change.
I ask you again, how can a government be supported without tax revenue?
Almost all the difficulties that our civilization currently faces are partially as a direct result of the poorly thought-out 'system' that we 'put up with', when we shouldn't.

Let me give you an example. You remember the Virginia Tech shootings? What did the legal system and the media purport as the cause? "One troubled individual." Bullshit! You, I, and everyone else knows that there are a vast number of other people who are similarly 'disturbed' to a more or hopefully lesser degree, perhaps you share some of the shooter's frustration, but you manage to keep a handle on it--you call it the dark side of human nature. Well, this 'dark side' is partially manufatured by the law's harmful effects on a human psyche. We don't really like being slaves.

All souls have a good conscience that should at least restrain them from intentionally harming other life. (Granted, some people don't seem to listen to theirs very often, but everyone has one.) Imagine yourself in the place of the young Korean and concider how you might rationalize pulling the trigger--to your own conscience.

His inner voice of goodness would've asked him NOT to kill--BUT--the Rule-of-Law's structure permitted him to mentally transfer the deed onto the law itself. His intent wasn't to kill people, he was focusing on breaking 'the state's prohibition' against murder, in order to make a political statement (with the human victims as collateral damage.)

"What the F--K difference does that make?" It makes for a huge change. With actions NOT being against any laws, it is impossible for a malcontent to break them--just to complain against the system. Instead, the "law" (it really can't be called that but I use it to show the function it would do.) should be written to ONLY protect people.

IE. Murder shouldn't be 'illegal' because the state has no right to place limits on free actions. BUT, people have an EQUAL right NOT TO BE MURDERED and the state promices to do what it can to protect citizens from the free actions of others. Do you understand this? A murder is free to murder--as long as he doesn't murder someone. The rule-of-law approaches an attempt to establish good order from the wrong direction. It doesn't work right because it is trying to PUSH on a rope, intead of pulling.

Return to the Virginia Tech killings. The killer wanted to make a political statement and the 'rule-of-law' enabled him to do exactly that. One could argue that the rule-of-law CAUSED the event. A justice system that offered protections only, would've stymied him. He couldn't have mitigated his conscience into thinking that he was only harming a thing--the law, instead he would only have been hurting people. He may not have been able to do it and how many people would still be alive? Additionally, the protective justice would've saved the killers life too--by not giving him the 'go-ahead' him kill. Besides, with an improved system, he might not have felt the same hopelessness that sent him over the brink in the first place.

"One troubled individual." --NO-- "One troubled society."
 
Back
Top