Debunking Myths About Paying Taxes

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's quite amazing how many people hold unusual interpretations of the law. Here's a article on some of the more mainstream theories about taxes, with the most common one found in conspiracy circles, that you don't need to pay your taxes at all.

http://moneyning.com/tax/debunking-3-myths-about-paying-taxes

Myth #1: You Aren’t Legally Bound to Pay TaxesOne of the most popular myths about paying taxes is that you don’t actually have to. Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the highest law of the land, says otherwise. It is legal for the government to levy income taxes, and you have to pay them.
Some of the confusion (intended or otherwise by those who would like to avoid paying taxes) arises from language that has been used in the past, referring to “voluntary assessment and payment.” Many officials have been quite clear in explaining that “voluntary” means that your figure out what you owe and then volunteer the information and the payment without the government coming to get it from you. Of course, if you decide not to volunteer the information, the IRS is likely to come and get it from you anyway. And maybe throw you in jail.

Read more at: http://moneyning.com/tax/debunking-3-myths-about-paying-taxes
Content from External Source
The IRS has a detailed article covering many of these myths:
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

Actor Wesley Snipes fell for this myth, after falling for some bad advice:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/05/30/wesley-snipes-tax-adviser-found-guilty-again/

Snipes had sought to avoid taxes by, among other things, using three bogus checks to pay $14 million in taxes and filing an amended tax return altered to state that he filed under "no" penalty of perjury. He later claimed to be a tax denier, meaning that he was not subject to tax based on a number of what have been found to be frivolous arguments. Snipes was said to have joined the movement in 1999 when he realized that he owed more than $2 million in federal income taxes. He subsequently sought out Eddie Kahn, who had previously served jail time in the 1980s for tax evasion, to do a seminar in his home. After that seminar (and paying Kahn a fee), Snipes refused to pay any more taxes to the U.S. government.
Content from External Source
And occasionally people take this to extremes of action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown

Edward Lewis Brown (born 1942) and his wife, Elaine Alice Brown (born c. 1940), residents of the state of New Hampshire, gained national news media attention in early 2007 for not paying the U.S. federal income tax and refusing to surrender to federal government agents after having been convicted of tax crimes.[1] After the conviction and sentencing, a long, armed standoff with federal law enforcement authorities at their New Hampshire residence ended with the arrest of Edward and Elaine Brown on October 4, 2007.[2][3][4] In July 2009, while serving their sentences for the tax crimes, the Browns were found guilty by a federal district court jury of additional criminal charges arising from their conduct during the standoff.
Content from External Source
and VERY odd interpretations of the law:

The Browns filed numerous pre-trial motions, contending (among other things) that the United States is owned by Paine Webber and that "the most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania."[58] According to the Concord Monitor, the Browns filed "about 30 motions, expressing views that their case is governed by commercial law, that they are not the people named in the indictment, that the federal government has no authority and that they can resolve all charges with 'promissory notes' for billions of dollars."[16] The Browns also claimed: "The U.S. has not had a Treasury since 1921"; "The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States"; "There are no judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789"; "There have not been any Judges in America since 1789"; "The Revolutionary War was a fraud"; "America is a British colony"; "Britain is owned by the Vatican"; and "A 1040 form [Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return] is for tribute paid to Britain".[59]
Content from External Source
 
The IRS has naturally been at the receiving end of these arguments for decades, and has over time come up with a pretty comprehensive debunking of most of them, with extensive reference to statute and case law.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

This document describes and responds to some of the more common frivolous arguments made by individuals and groups who oppose compliance with the federal tax laws. The first section groups these arguments under five general categories, with variations within each category. Each contention is briefly explained, followed by a discussion of the legal authority that rejects the contention. The second section responds to some of the more common frivolous arguments made in collection due process cases brought pursuant to sections 6320 or 6330. These arguments are grouped under ten general categories and contain a brief description of each contention followed by a discussion of the correct legal authority. A final section explains the penalties that the courts may impose on those who pursue tax cases on frivolous grounds. The court opinions cited as relevant legal authority illustrate how these arguments are treated by the IRS and the courts. Note that courts often decline “to refute [frivolous] arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent” for a variety of reasons. Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011) (quoting Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). This document, including the relevant legal authorities cited, is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of frivolous tax arguments.
Content from External Source
 
Since this particular thread seems “sparse” here you go...


This might not be considered a "myth" but perhaps a philosophical argument of Natural Law which debunks the actual myth of any lawful requirement to pay income tax.


Would you agree that there is such a thing as Natural Law and its principle of justice as codified by The Declaration of Independence, which defines all human rights to his/her person and property; all of his/her rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Would you agree that these rights to life, liberty, and property have always been attributes of our existence, simply encoded in documents such as The Declaration? Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? If so, then these rights cannot be removed by any authority (gov't) of people. These rights show us how to live in peace by illuminating the conditions on which people can live in peace. The conditions are simple: 1. Do what justice requires 2. Abstain from what justice forbids. This means protect life, liberty and property and don't destroy life, liberty and property. Throughout history, whenever people have attempted to live in peace, they have acknowledged one natural law or legal obligation to each other, this ancient axiom states: “Live honestly toward every other.” If there is a Natural Law bearing this principle of justice then it is the Supreme Law which no human authority can add or detract from. Therefore, it is the right and duty of all people to repel injustice and compel justice and in doing so, to never support an association or "human law" that, according to nature, would itself do injustice. If a government law requires that property be taken from the person it belongs and given to someone it doesn't belong (income tax) or if the law actually performs what it prosecutes as a crime for an individual to perform (income tax), then it violates Natural Law and is creating injustice. Therefore, it would be criminal for anyone to join or remain involved in any association (by paying income taxes) that perpetuates injustice.

have at it...
 
Then if justice is not a natural principle, everything people have done and written about it since the beginning of time, has been done about something which does not exist - nothing. If there is then no such thing as injustice then there is no such thing as crime; crimes are only events, like falling rain or earthquakes. If justice is not a natural principle and does not exist then why do governments take cognizance of it? The documents I sited are worth nothing? Is that your position?
 
Law is an artificial construct. But it's a very useful one for societies to succeed.

It's kind of irrelevant if there is Natural Law or not, as the question that you should ask is if something is legal for practical purposes. One is perfectly free to disagree with a law on philosophical grounds, but since those philosophical grounds are not going to win you any court cases, then it is of no practical import.
 
Well what would be the point to debate on philosophical grounds since they are a fantasy? So, where do you suppose the right to make these "artificial constructs" (laws) come from?
 
There's no point. There's no "right" to make laws. People just make them and enforce them. Look at history, that's what happened.
 
Well if there is no point, no science of justice, no science of government (indeed, the only science you seem to recognize occurs solely in a test-tube); and all the voracity and violence, by which, throughout history (as you pointed out) in all nations, a few confederated criminals have obtained the mastery over the rest of humanity, reduced them to poverty and slavery, and established so-called governments to keep them in subjugation have been as legitimate examples of government as any that the world has ever seen.

And you are actually right that there is no point debating a sophist in anything remotely akin to morality or deductive thought. Answer one question: Why is the Declaration of Independence considered a "legal" document?

 
There's plenty of science of laws, justice, and government. But it's the science of what and how it works. Not some abstract notion of "legitimacy".

The Declaration of Independence is considered a "legal" document because it notionally established a new legal situation.

You can't argue your way out of paying taxes, because the enforced law requires you to pay taxes. You disagreeing with the legitimacy of the law is entirely irrelevant. It's still the law.
 
Well your just ignoring the whole basis and weight of the document which absolutely makes the point that there is such a thing as "legitimate" government. But your missing the point... A government founded on the Declaration, and which, at least with lip-service, supports it, recognizes NATURAL RIGHTS. Therefore under such a government everything I said in my initial post about natural law is valid and true, and unless you can point out how I have made an error I think the argument is over.
 
I would like to point out one more glaring flaw (or at least the most glaring) to your line of reasoning: "Might-makes-right" is a logical fallacy (Argumentum Ad Baculum/Appeal to Force).

peace
 
Assuming natural laws exist as something other than a construct, then since nobody knows for sure what the natural laws actually are (because the universe is not running on the english language), then the Declaration is still an artificial construct.

And besides, it's the Constitution that forms the basis of the law, not the Declaration of Independence. You cold replace the DoI with "you're not our King any more, because you are an asshole. We are setting up our own nation, no kings allowed!", and the law would be just the same.
 
I would like to point out one more glaring flaw (or at least the most glaring) to your line of reasoning: "Might-makes-right" is a logical fallacy (Argumentum Ad Baculum/Appeal to Force).

peace

Nobody said it was "right", more like "might makes laws".
 
Assuming natural laws exist as something other than a construct, then since nobody knows for sure what the natural laws actually are (because the universe is not running on the english language), then the Declaration is still an artificial construct.

And besides, it's the Constitution that forms the basis of the law, not the Declaration of Independence. You cold replace the DoI with "you're not our King any more, because you are an asshole. We are setting up our own nation, no kings allowed!", and the law would be just the same.

Life is essentially a "survival situation" for all beings and all beings have a right to survive because they are alive - this applies to every living being in the universe. Mankind has many attributes (that he didn't invent or create which were given to him by nature) like free will, reason, the desire to be happy. Natural law and rights are derived from these things not any language. Jefferson called them "self-evident" truths. They are arrived at through deductive reasoning (a human attribute) and are not able to be measured with a microscope because they are not a material substance. I have no idea what the natural rights of non-carbon base life forms from the Messier 81 galaxy would be because I have no idea what their natural attributes are, but they do have the right to be alive and to use what they need to survive unhindered by arbitrary and coercive power structures. The point is, nature law is not arbitrary or artificial.

Granted, the Declaration of Independence is not a set of instructions for an operational government, but it is the foundation for the Constitution or at least the foundation for the principles it seeks to protect.

Also if the Declaration said "you're not our King any more, because you are an asshole. We are setting up our own nation, no kings allowed!", like you suggested, then my argument would be invalid, but, and I repeat, the Declaration defines natural rights as the basis for law, which the Constitution codifies. So, how am I wrong?
 
It does not define exactly what those natural laws are, or how they should be used, or how it determined what they were. It's more like "it seems pretty obvious that kings should not be assholes, and if they are then people should get rid of them"
 
Actually, Mick, you are right. I'm sitting here arguing about righteousness and truth and you're simply saying (paraphrasing) that it doesn't matter, they will throw you in jail anyway. It is an awful reality to me, but it is a true representation of it. Anyway, I enjoyed our discussion, it was stimulating and I appreciate your demeanor but right or wrong, true or false, coercion is coercion and jail is jail. Unfortunately, we live today (maybe always) in a sort of ethical wasteland bereft of reason and wisdom.

cheers
 
As far as I can see your constitution does codify the basis for your law and your supreme court gets to decide if laws are "constitutional" or not, and under that arrangment your tax laws have been deemed constitutional haven't they?

therefore your argument about "righteousness and truth" has been shown to be wrong - it is nothing moe than wishful thinking - your government IS legitimate, your tax laws ARE legal, and arguing otherwise is simply wrong.

"Natural law" may be the basis for something - but it is not ACTUAL law unless it is codified. Until that happens what constitutes "natural law" is diferent for every person - and that is exactly why we do not use it as such in courts, public administration or anywhere else - except cases of special pleading.
 
As far as I can see your constitution does codify the basis for your law and your supreme court gets to decide if laws are "constitutional" or not, and under that arrangment your tax laws have been deemed constitutional haven't they?

therefore your argument about "righteousness and truth" has been shown to be wrong - it is nothing moe than wishful thinking - your government IS legitimate, your tax laws ARE legal, and arguing otherwise is simply wrong.

"Natural law" may be the basis for something - but it is not ACTUAL law unless it is codified. Until that happens what constitutes "natural law" is diferent for every person - and that is exactly why we do not use it as such in courts, public administration or anywhere else - except cases of special pleading.


On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”
Content from External Source
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/0...truck-down-federal-reserve-both-not-enforced/

So how does a law ruled "unconstitutional" by the esteemed supreme court become constitutional again. Through legislature? Executive order? No. Whatever the guys with more money and bigger weapons want? Seems that way.

Anyway, I'm not wrong and your assertion that a law needs to be codified in some document to be legitimate is absurd. The Six Nations of the Iroquois managed a complex social system of millions of people for centuries without a legislature or written law. How is that possible if natural law is different for every person? It is because it's not. It is the attributes that we all have in common and the common need and desire to survive and prosper.
 
So how does a law ruled "unconstitutional" by the esteemed supreme court become constitutional again. Through legislature? Executive order? No. Whatever the guys with more money and bigger weapons want? Seems that way.

By constitutional amendment. The 16th in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.
Content from External Source
 
It becomes constitutional by the 16th amendment.

Sorry about that.

I didn't say anything about written law - I said ACTUAL law - I see no reason why actual law cannot be recorded orally for example.

as for natural law being different for each person - the Cairo Declaration on Human rights, for example, says that all laws, natural and otehrwise, are subject to sharia.

It also says
All human beings are Allah's subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most beneficial to His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds
Content from External Source
- that is natural law for them.

do you agree??
 
By constitutional amendment. The 16th in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.
Content from External Source

Yes, I know about the 16th amendment, which according to evidence was not ratified properly, and in addition, is still hotly debated as to it's constitutionality as well as whether it actually does make income tax "constitutional". But this is yet another rabbit hole of comprise and contradiction which I won't go down... I'm arguing at the "root cause".
 
It becomes constitutional by the 16th amendment.

Sorry about that.

I didn't say anything about written law - I said ACTUAL law - I see no reason why actual law cannot be recorded orally for example.
Point taken. So if it's codified through my ears into my brain is that sufficient?

as for natural law being different for each person - the Cairo Declaration on Human rights, for example, says that all laws, natural and otehrwise, are subject to sharia.

It also says
All human beings are Allah's subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most beneficial to His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds
Content from External Source
- that is natural law for them.

do you agree??[/QUOTE]

I think that it's pretty close to the axiom: “Live honestly toward every other.” An ancient codification of natural law so I would accept it. I don't want to discuss the validity of each religion, however. If you want to get into a discussion of God, first, debunk Spinoza's - the ethics: http://www.yesselman.com/e1elwes.htm; and Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm.

Look, what I'm trying to argue, through the process of deduction, is the science of justice, as natural principle, as codified by the Declaration of Independence's description of natural rights (and the bill of rights but I didn't even bring that up), which is violated by income tax. I mean, are the basic rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" just a load of bullshite or what?
 
I dont' see anything in the bill of rights that is violated by income tax - there's nothing in it about taxes at all that I can see. The only mention of taxes in thedeclaration of independance is condemnation of the Kinf got "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent" - the clear implication is that taxes can be imposed with consent.

and given that the DoI says that one of the "natural laws" is to have a government, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the government operating with the general consent of the population (by way of it's representative structure whatever that may be) has hte right to levy taxes.

Perhaps you are confusing these with the actual constitution, wherein Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Content from External Source
the history of why the tax system did and did not include income taxes is discussed in the link - income tax has NEVER been unconstitutional.

The only question has been whether income tax is direct - in which case it has to be apportioned, or indirect, inwhich case it has to be uniform - both as provided for in the constitution.

The 1895 case Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. was about how to tax the income from property - as opposed to the property itself. Property "income taxes" (eg taxes on rent) were held by the court to be direct and therefore require apportionment, but the 1894 act that enabled them did not make them apportioned - and that is why that particular "income tax" was not constitutional at the time.

First. We adhere to the opinion already announced—that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.

The decrees hereinbefore entered in this court will be vacated. The decrees below will be reversed, and the cases remanded, with instructions to grant the relief prayed.
Content from External Source
It was a loophole in the law that only related to property, and nothing whatsoever to do with your bog-standard income tax on wages being unconstitutional.

Basically you are still, simply, wrong.
 
In no way have you addressed my argument. I'm not arguing the constitutionality of anything since I am not a constitutional scholar. Actually, I think Mick inserted it somewhere... You seem to not understand, although I think you do, that the DoI precedes the Constitution as do the people precede government. The "Right" lies among the people (according to the DoI). Using logic we see that the common denominator of the "people" is the person. The "people" is an abstraction; the individual is real. Therefore, the "real" right lies with the individual. Individuals make up people and people make up government. Get it? I will repeat my original assertion:

Would you agree that there is such a thing as Natural Law and its principle of justice as codified by The Declaration of Independence, which defines all human rights to his/her person and property; all of his/her rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Would you agree that these rights to life, liberty, and property have always been attributes of our existence, simply encoded in documents such as The Declaration? Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? If so, then these rights cannot be removed by any authority (gov't) of people. These rights show us how to live in peace by illuminating the conditions on which people can live in peace. The conditions are simple: 1. Do what justice requires 2. Abstain from what justice forbids. This means protect life, liberty and property and don't destroy life, liberty and property. Throughout history, whenever people have attempted to live in peace, they have acknowledged one natural law or legal obligation to each other, this ancient axiom states: “Live honestly toward every other.” If there is a Natural Law bearing this principle of justice then it is the Supreme Law which no human authority can add or detract from. Therefore, it is the right and duty of all people to repel injustice and compel justice and in doing so, to never support an association or "human law" that, according to nature, would itself do injustice. If a government law requires that property be taken from the person it belongs and given to someone it doesn't belong (income tax) or if the law actually performs what it prosecutes as a crime for an individual to perform (income tax), then it violates Natural Law and is creating injustice. Therefore, it would be criminal for anyone to join or remain involved in any association (by paying income taxes) that perpetuates injustice.

Basically you are still, simply, wrong.

This statement is "simply" meaningless.
 
"We the people....." is not talking about every person as an individual, it is talking about the people as an entity.

So your reliance upon the semantics still fails.
 
In no way have you addressed my argument. I'm not arguing the constitutionality of anything ...

Oh really??

so when you wrote:

...the Declaration of Independence's description of natural rights (and the bill of rights but I didn't even bring that up), which is violated by income tax...


You were not saying that you think that income tax is is unconstitutional????:confused:

I thought your whole point was that income tax is unconstitutional?? I do not see you suggeesting anythign else at all and since the question has been pondered by the courts of the USA, and they have found that it IS constitutional, that makes you wrong. Sorry - but that's not meaningless - that is factual.

My apologies if you were suggesting something else - I have completely missed it if that is the case.
 
"Alterius non sit qui suus esse potest"

["Let no man belong to another that can belong to himself."]
 
I see your Paracelsus's irrelevant motto, and raise you 2 - falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus and fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

["false in one thing, false in everything" and "People generally believe what they want to"]
 
Law is an artificial construct. But it's a very useful one for societies to succeed.

Really? Name a society that has 'succeeded', and how it has 'succeeded' because of the 'useful' artificial construct called law.


Look at history, that's what happened.

History? Please define it in your own words.

You can't argue your way out of paying taxes, because the enforced law requires you to pay taxes. You disagreeing with the legitimacy of the law is entirely irrelevant. It's still the law.

If the mafia offer you 'protection' at a price, you pay cash - or you pay in kind. The difference between a mafia and a government is irrelevant, the result is pretty much the same - if we're going to use words like 'practical'. It's called extortion and arguments about its legitimacy are quite relevant, necessary might even be a better description.
I think you're reaching out of your comfort zone and it shows. Incessant trumpetting of 'science' as some kind of god illustrates very well the shortcomings. One needs to remember it is science and scientists that have colluded in creating this mess we call civilisation; they have eagerly aided us to the edge of the abyss. It's Status Quo for you; keep going, you'll say - science will teach us all we need to know. You could not be more wrong.

In order to understand, what you have learned must be put aside in totality...and to understand is to transform what is.
 
That's "succeed" in the sense of "not collapsed". Of course you can insert your own criteria for success. And of course nearly all societies have historically collapsed. But there don't seem to be any large societies that existed without laws. It's a pragmatic reality.
 
That's "succeed" in the sense of "not collapsed". Of course you can insert your own criteria for success. And of course nearly all societies have historically collapsed. But there don't seem to be any large societies that existed without laws. It's a pragmatic reality.

'Succeed' has a meaning. That meaning is not 'not collapsed'; it cannot mean this in any 'sense'. To succeed is to achieve that which was desired.

Edit [ofcourse there is one sense in which success can mean 'not collapse', and that is if the ethos is to 'not collapse' above all else]
 
Oh but I disagree. In this paradigm 'collapse' is inevitable and it is desirable. It appears to be happening right about now. Have you noticed?

No, I can't say I have. But assuming it is, then historically which collapse do you think the current collapse is closest to?

Have you read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond? It's an interesting book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

His TED talk, in short form:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html

And long:
 
No, I can't say I have. But assuming it is, then historically which collapse do you think the current collapse is closest to?

Maybe you believe that man will always blunder from one thing to the next, 'learning' along the way....I do not. The crisis is not comparable to any other....critical mass appears to be approaching....if this thing you call 'history' has any value it is in allowing you to see how we have progressed; there it is in the 'art' of war, in dominance, aggression, acquisition, brutality. We are a whole species suffering a great psychological - and more - crisis. Every system we try to impose is beyond absurd. And we multiply like the unthinking virus we mimic. What's not to collapse?
 
Can you be a bit more specific. What is going to collapse exactly? When I think of societal collapse I think of catastrophic population reductions, starvation, war, anarchy. That type of thing?

I don't think that will happen in the US or Europe in the next 50 years. I'm sure there will be some big changes. A lot depends on the climate. But western populations have stabilized, and some are even trending downwards.

I think the biggest problem facing the US is wealth inequality and the corruption of the political process with money. But I don't think that's going to lead to collapse.
 
I see your Paracelsus's irrelevant motto, and raise you 2 - falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus and fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

["false in one thing, false in everything" and "People generally believe what they want to"]

It originates from "The Frogs Who Desired a King".. You should read it, it's an Aesop fable.

You keep saying "false, false, false" as if it in itself makes something false, but you haven't really dismantled my argument at all. You disagree, that's fine. You may say that I'm impractical or something but you can't say I'm wrong because you haven't proven it. Saying that "I believe what I want to believe" is mildly insulting since I apply very much rigor to seeking "the truth" and don't just believe things. I think what you have proven is that you have above average intelligence and can use google but you don't have much knowledge of philosophy (which, throughout history has driven science) or logic, which is disappointing. Prove that I've made an error in my reasoning and I will admit it. But to saying that I believe what I want is only a reflection of your own situation.
 
Back
Top