Overt government power grabs...how reckless are they?

[split from *** July 2012 low content thread *** here]

 

@Are Banks Raiding "Allocated" Gold Accounts:

" It's safer buried in your backyard (and cheaper) than being "protected' by banksters."

I've heard many conflicting points on this issue - I've read claims that no safety-deposit boxes were seized under Roosevelt's Gold Confiscation Order in 1933 and the accompanying legislation in 1934. But then I've read other claims to the contrary. Were there seized boxes or not?

In any case, I just think that people should be aware that burying in their backyard actually does carry a lot of risks. If you're renting, you could be evicted and you would find it impossible to recover your cache. If you own, you can fall behind on your mortgage or property taxes and ditto. You might say these aren't a risk because you would have time to remove the cache before leaving the house but this fails to take into account that the reason you might be behind on the rent, mortgage or taxes is because you're in jail on some other charge - the government can jail you for effectively any reason it likes in the post-9/11 world. Or, you might be in the hospital for an extended time with a debilitating illness. Or whatever.

My presumption is that safety-deposit boxes come with risks. But don't forget that every other option also has risks, too.

Clayton -

Clayton:

I've read claims that no safety-deposit boxes were seized under Roosevelt's Gold Confiscation Order in 1933 and the accompanying legislation in 1934. But then I've read other claims to the contrary. Were there seized boxes or not?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were.  But since when would it matter to you either way?  Since when is "well they never did it before" ever even a beginning of an argument against the possibility of government doing something...especially for Mr. Paranoid?

California Seizing Property from Safety Deposit Boxes

(video)

So much for safety

 

There's other clever options.  (be sure to check the comments there too)

 

especially for Mr. Paranoid?

LOL - yeah, I don't have a safety deposit box and I can't imagine ever getting one within the US. Maybe Switzerland (not UBS though!). One day when I'm a zillionaire, maybe.

As an aside, I noticed that the IRS is offering "tax breaks" for the money you spend on renting a safety-deposit box. All you have to do is report to them the bank and branch where it's located and the price you're paying. AKA voluntarily rat yourself out. But what puzzles me about that is that it's not like they can't just pull that information anyway, the entire financial grid is fully computerized; my presumption is that USG has access to every last detail of bank records and customer data.

Clayton -

Clayton:

As an aside, I noticed that the IRS is offering "tax breaks" for the money you spend on renting a safety-deposit box. All you have to do is report to them the bank and branch where it's located and the price you're paying. AKA voluntarily rat yourself out. But what puzzles me about that is that it's not like they can't just pull that information anyway, the entire financial grid is fully computerized; my presumption is that USG has access to every last detail of bank records and customer data.

Yeah, but if you "volunteer" the information the USG, then it makes it easier for them to justify the theft in court. They can't reveal and admit to using the secret API they use to access the information.

Also, it's a brilliant hustle because they are using your money. It's like a thief on the street saying, "tell me where your gold bars are buried and, in exchange, I will give you back your wallet."

Clayton:

But what puzzles me about that is that it's not like they can't just pull that information anyway, the entire financial grid is fully computerized; my presumption is that USG has access to every last detail of bank records and customer data.

Yeah but like I was saying here I think you're a bit too paranoid...that is you give them way too much credit.  I think you give too much credence to the true centralization of power and how effective it really is.  I actually hadn't thought about the IRS tax breaks (I'm pretty sure I heard of that sort of thing), but I'm sure you're right about that part.  It's actually kind of funny when you think about it...how obvious it is: "Oh yeah, totally...it helps the economy when you use a safety deposit box.  That's why we'll even give you a tax break!  Just tell us exactly where it is and how much you're paying for it (i.e. what size it is...which of course gives us a good idea of the kinds of things you're putting in there and how valuable they are)".

But that wouldn't even cross most people's minds.

I know you would think the hole grid is just a huge database of info and if you're high enough in government you can get access to pretty much anything about someone...and to a certain degree that's true, for certain things.  But I don't think you lend enough appreciation for the compartmentalization in government...particularly one so large and complex as ours.

I think the IRS essentially does need you to tell them.  Obviously there's a record somewhere of you renting the box, but the work it would take for one agency to get that kind of info would be too much, especially for a large number of citizens.  It's much easier to just offer you a financial incentive to voluntarily hand it over.  It's definitely worth the pittance (literally, what, maybe $50/yr?) they're giving up.

Plus, even if they did gain access without your help, Muff makes the good point that it would be quite a bit of exposure.  Everytime the State's true nature is revealed like that it gains some attention.  They can't afford to have very many of those exposures within a certain length of time, or they run the risk of too many people having their blinders fade.  It happens all the time, and with Internet, the pace of that awakening is excellerating exponentially.  Obviously they're afraid of the Internet, but I don't think they yet realize just how dangerous it is to them.

 

Yeah but like I was saying here I think you're a bit too paranoid...that is you give them way too much credit.  I think you give too much credence to the true centralization of power and how effective it really is.

Well, I think you and I will perpetually disagree on this point. I will concede that there is such a thing as giving them too much credit and that this is damaging because it can be used to intimidate people from exercising freedoms "under the radar" that they otherwise would have exercised if they knew they could get away with it.

Nevertheless - as someone who doesn't think 9/11 was an accident and who believes that the Elites believe we are living in a "new era" since they staged their little coup in NYC 11 years ago - I believe that the government is in "overdrive" and is more reckless than ever, that is, less afraid to stick its neck out legally because it's all but certain that they'll get away with anything they do. If worse comes to worst, they can always cry "national security! terrorism!" and whatever crime they committed is magically swept away.

As for efficiency, I think the old conservative line that "government is inefficient" has to be carefully circumscribed - government is only inefficient at what it claims it is about. That is, it's inefficient at paving the roads, patrolling the streets, investigating crimes, securing the borders, helping the poor, and so on. But governments everywhere in the world are the very model of efficiency in regard to what their true, praxeological ends are (parasitic subsistence, war-making, etc.)

I actually hadn't thought about the IRS tax breaks (I'm pretty sure I heard of that sort of thing), but I'm sure you're right about that part.  It's actually kind of funny when you think about it...how obvious it is: "Oh yeah, totally...it helps the economy when you use a safety deposit box.  That's why we'll even give you a tax break!  Just tell us exactly where it is and how much you're paying for it (i.e. what size it is...which of course gives us a good idea of the kinds of things you're putting in there and how valuable they are)".

But that wouldn't even cross most people's minds.

Yep.

I know you would think the hole grid is just a huge database of info and if you're high enough in government you can get access to pretty much anything about someone...and to a certain degree that's true, for certain things.  But I don't think you lend enough appreciation for the compartmentalization in government...particularly one so large and complex as ours.

I think the IRS essentially does need you to tell them.  Obviously there's a record somewhere of you renting the box, but the work it would take for one agency to get that kind of info would be too much, especially for a large number of citizens.  It's much easier to just offer you a financial incentive to voluntarily hand it over.  It's definitely worth the pittance (literally, what, maybe $50/yr?) they're giving up.

You're probably right, at least, we can enter into evidence the very fact that the IRS is asking for this info through offering a tax break as evidence that it's not something they automatically have access to.

Plus, even if they did gain access without your help, Muff makes the good point that it would be quite a bit of exposure.  Everytime the State's true nature is revealed like that it gains some attention.  They can't afford to have very many of those exposures within a certain length of time, or they run the risk of too many people having their blinders fade.  It happens all the time, and with Internet, the pace of that awakening is excellerating exponentially.  Obviously they're afraid of the Internet, but I don't think they yet realize just how dangerous it is to them.

Well, the government is obsessed with "getting confessions" so this is consistent with their MO even if they do have access to the data. After all, they already have the info needed to calculate your taxes (W2's, etc.) yet they won't tell you what you owe. I think you posted this sometime back:

And there's a reason why - the 1040 is a confession. If you try to challenge the IRS, the 1040 is their first line of defense. "But you yourself said you earned $X and, as can be seen in the accompanying literature, applicable regulations and statutes, this directly implies that you are saying you owe $Y in taxes to us." Any discussion of whether the government has the "right" to collect taxes in the first place will be summarily silenced as irrelevant.

This is why the tax freedom types try foregoing filing a 1040. But then, they have other ways of dealing with that.

Clayton -

Clayton:

Nevertheless - as someone who doesn't think 9/11 was an accident and who believes that the Elites believe we are living in a "new era" since they staged their little coup in NYC 11 years ago - I believe that the government is in "overdrive" and is more reckless than ever, that is, less afraid to stick its neck out legally because it's all but certain that they'll get away with anything they do. If worse comes to worst, they can always cry "national security! terrorism!" and whatever crime they committed is magically swept away.

You're right about the "national security" claim, as of course they use that all the time as it is now.  (Check out here, and of course the soldier's response here.)  And you're also right about what they'll try.  I don't know if I'd use the term "reckless", but of course there's always going to be a push for more government growth...

as Jefferson said: The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.

And then of course Frederick Douglass: Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; [the quote usually stopps there, but the rest is interesting...] and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

 

As for efficiency, I think the old conservative line that "government is inefficient" has to be carefully circumscribed - government is only inefficient at what it claims it is about. That is, it's inefficient at paving the roads, patrolling the streets, investigating crimes, securing the borders, helping the poor, and so on. But governments everywhere in the world are the very model of efficiency in regard to what their true, praxeological ends are (parasitic subsistence, war-making, etc.)

I think this is where we disagree.  They may be more efficient at power grabbing and oppression than actually performing services people want, but that doesn't mean they're stretching the pennies as far as they'll go.  There are other things that hurt efficiency other than simply not being very interested to do what you're charged with doing.  For one thing the interests don't always align.  Something one powerful man wants often conflicts with something another wants.  (Indeed many times the confict exists simply because the one man doesn't like the other).  So there is a constant inside struggle that impedes the outside progress.  The current LIBOR scandal is kind of a good illustration of this.  "It's basically about 16 banksters in a room not doing a very effective job of trying to screw each other." 

Then of course the bureaucracy itself is a huge handicapp.  It doesn't matter how interested you are in doing something, red tape like our government has is going to hold you back.  This also sort of plays into the diseconomies of scale, like Doug French was talking about.

While I agree they're certainly better at bombing people than keeping the domestic highways up to par, that certainly doesn't mean they're the models of efficiency by any means.

 

This is why the tax freedom types try foregoing filing a 1040. But then, they have other ways of dealing with that.

That's why stuff like this intrigues me.

 

That's why stuff like this intrigues me.

It's a mug's game, if you ask me. Check out what his lawyer has to say (linked) - be prepared to lose everything. This isn't a game for a family man. And when you get through it all - assuming you were to win - you would merely get to keep what you had to begin with. Less legal costs.

I gravely doubt the wisdom of any movement that focuses on refuting the government's tyranny in the government's own courts. The best you can hope to achieve is to walk away. There isn't even any guarantee they won't come after you again for something else.

Clayton -

Oh yeah, I wouldn't say you necessarily want to be taking that kind of risk if you're just an average joe with 2.3 kids, a spouse, a mortgage, and a $40k/yr salary.

But nonetheless these folks intrigue me.  He's not the only former IRS agent I've seen speak on not paying taxes (and make the claim of not paying his own for years).  If you check the other videos in the playlist there's a lot from female agent with a similar story.  My guess is these people are left alone because the publicity is too much a risk.  They can lock up someone like Irwin Schiff and pass him off as a kook, but sharp, straight-laced former IRS special agents would be able to make too much noise.  The only way they were able to keep a lid on the whole scam was denying Schiff a hearing (or at least the right to speak in his defense).  I doubt they'd be able to do that with someone with credentials like these folks.  It would be too much of a story.

I can't imagine the repercussions of actual IRS special agents making the case in federal court that there is no law that says individuals have to pay income tax.  That's really the only reason I can think of these people can get away with doing national interviews and teaching classes and admitting they haven't paid income tax in over a decade.

 

I heard about these people before. I also heard that there are certain lawyers who they refuse to take to court, meaning if he or she represents you, its going to be settled. The major mistake Irwin Schiff made is going on good morning america and stuff like that. Somehow I think that these individuals would have similar experiences if they got the same publicity. The irs knows what it is doing. If you pay taxes on embezzled funds or drug money, the irs isnt going to run to justice dept. and rat you out.