

On Stack and the IRS - thinkcomp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/on-stack-and-the-irs_b_468529.html

======
thaumaturgy
I'm just catching up to the news on this, but I'm kind of disappointed in the
articles that I've read, like this one, which are so quick to backpedal and
say, "not that his actions were justified".

This is going to be a terribly unpopular point of view I'm sure, but all
specific details of his particular case aside ... what is an individual or
small business with limited resources going to do if they end up stuck in an
IRS quagmire? Is the IRS really defensible at all here?

What happened is exactly what can be expected to happen when the rules of the
social contract are violated. For social contracts to work, there must be a
way for parties to peacefully resolve arguments. In the case of the IRS (in
particular), you have a complex, constantly changing system, with little
recourse for resolving disagreements.

I've been _really_ poor, and it's easy in that situation to adopt an us versus
them, self-defeating attitude towards government and bureaucracy. Resolving
any disputes requires resources, and when you don't have those resources, you
find yourself struggling on the losing end of deals over and over again.

There are, at least, thousands of people that would imagine themselves doing
what Stack did, and for much the same reasons. Doesn't that practically
_require_ that the tax system get reviewed, and fixed?

~~~
thinkcomp
This is one of those very fine lines where on one side you have completely
understandable outrage at an unjust and broken system--and on the other you
have completely understandable outrage at an unjust and broken system, and
killing people who are employed by the system but don't any have direct
control over it. I think the former is entirely justified, but the latter is
clearly not.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Hmm. If the latter is unjustified, what does that say about situations in war
where civilians are killed, injured, or have their property destroyed?

I'm not quite equating what happened in Texas with war between sovereign
states, but I do think there are some parallels in the mind of the terrorist,
as well as in history and human behavior in general.

If you find yourself in a violent conflict with something intangible, like a
government or a bureaucracy, how do you not see the people who are working for
that government or bureaucracy as being part of the problem?

EDIT: I want to be very clear here. What happened to the employees at the IRS
building is tragic, and they didn't have any influence on the IRS' decision-
making process, or even on Stack's particular situation. Rather, what I'm
trying to say is that as long as there is no way to peacefully resolve
disputes in situations like this, to the satisfaction of both parties, then
what happened is to be expected and will continue to happen. (Remember Tim
McVeigh? He had some of the same complaints...)

So, what happened _must_ prompt a quick response in the form of reforms of the
IRS, specifically in dispute management and resolution, and I think that every
article that handwaves Stack's terrorism as being the actions of "a wacko", "a
nut", or "unjustified", weakens the case for those reforms.

~~~
codexon
_I'm not quite equating what happened in Texas with war between sovereign
states_

It's only a matter of scale. Nations have gone to war for less righteous
reasons; such as religion or taking stuff from weaker nations.

------
invisible
It is bizarre to me that the author is cutting down Stack and at the same
exact time defending his message (but not his actions). So you really think
you'd be writing this piece if he didn't take dire actions, Aaron Greenspan?

I have said it before, but there is a certain point where things are not
terrorism or insane but instead revolt and rebellion. I, for one, understand
his actions (although I, myself, would not choose to die over money). Perhaps
he understood that only making a dumb, cruel decision would give his message
weight to appear on major news sites. We do not know.

What exactly should a man that has tried to financially change things,
politically change things, and fallen back on trying to avoid getting in
trouble do?

In any case, I do not like the IRS and it's veil of mystery. I use tax
software because it takes me tons of time to do the paper form by hand and
figure out what forms I even need to submit (it still took me around 2 hours
to get everything in order to do my taxes and complete them with the software
- just personal taxes and no state taxes). What does it say when the IRS
Commissioner can't do his own taxes yet this guy was financially penalized for
using an accountant to try and get his records right?

~~~
thinkcomp
Yes. I've been writing about taxes for a long time, actually. See

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-
deal-20_b_...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-
deal-20_b_142518.html)

What you're supposed to do is bring problems to light through the press and/or
lobbying Congress (the lobbying process is not just reserved for corporations)
and/or filing lawsuits. When and where appropriate, I've done all three.

What you're not supposed to do is physically harm those you disagree with.
That's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship ruled by thugs.

~~~
invisible
You briefly scuffed on the subject of the IRS having a bad system for a single
form in that article. You're telling me that this recent article you wrote was
being prepared prior to Stack's violent decision? I did not think so.

He brought the topics to light by forcing them into the light in a crude
manner. Harming government employees is probably as close as you can get to
making a strong point without committing a huge atrocity (unless you consider
picketing "strong").

Unfortunately, we have done tons of physical harm in the past to get our way,
Mr. Greenspan. See the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the
Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. It sometimes requires ugly situations to fix
ugly problems. So you're going to really claim that the entire history of our
United States is based on a dictatorship ruled by thugs?

 _Edit:_ I did not mean to imply you did not have an interest in tax reform,
simply that you (among many others in the news industry) are touching on the
subject when the interest has peaked due to Stack's actions. You may have
wrote something similar in 5 months or 5 years, but it is easy to say that the
message would not resonate as much.

~~~
thinkcomp
See also (dated February 1, 2007):

<http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11>

I disagree that violence is the best answer to problems that are themselves
non-violent in nature, such as tax problems, and I'll leave it at that.

Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax
system?

~~~
DenisM
_Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax
system?_

invisible's point is that you would not cover the issue as extensively had it
not been for the Stack's actions, therefore those actions were not entirely
pointless as they created more awareness of the problem. Your reply amounts to
an ad-hom. Kindly refrain.

~~~
thinkcomp
I disagree. First of all, I never said that anything was pointless. Secondly,
Mark criticized my arguments because I had merely "scuffed on the subject of
the IRS" in his words. I think I'm entitled to know what he's written on the
subject.

Especially when I've offered up my name and background, asking for an
anonymous critic's name and background does not constitute an ad hominem
attack, and may in fact raise important points in the context of a debate.

~~~
DenisM
_I think I'm entitled to know what he's written on the subject._

Try addressing the substance of the argument instead of the person that
brought it forward.

------
hga
Bleah. By Stack's own admission, the first of his beefs with the IRS was
getting caught in an "organized religion" scam. I didn't read past that, but I
understand his third beef is akin to that.

(The second is legitimate, it too put me out of a job in 1987 and on a bad
career path for a long while, but the problem was more with the Congress that
removed the safe harbor just for us "technical professionals" than the IRS
which then enforced that.)

~~~
wjy
Can you summarize what safe harbor provisions were removed? It wasn't clear to
me from Stack's writing what, exactly, technical folks were being exempt from.

~~~
hga
Another HN contributor did a much better job than I could:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1137930>

My only caveat is that as far as I remember this is something that Pat
Moynihan in the middle of the night slipped into a COBRA bill (one of those
last minute 1,000 page catch alls to continue funding the government) instead
of something subjected to _any_ debate in the Congress. Yep, it did happen in
the same year as the tax changes, but not e.g. in the same bill or as I recall
at the same time.

~~~
hga
My recollection seems to be wrong:
[http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/02/the-
austin-p...](http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/02/the-austin-
pilot-.html) (HT the Instapundit.)

Then again having lost my job I didn't care _that_ much about the details,
which weren't particularly available in that pre-real Internet period.

~~~
hga
Or maybe not, except for it being the _big_ tax bill that year instead of a
COBRA. This article: [http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/fixing-
independent-pr...](http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/fixing-independent-
programmers-no-win-scenario-764) and one of the comments matches my
recollection that Moynihan slipped it into the bill in the dead of night and
that it was never directly considered.

Says also that Moynihan tried to get it repealed a year later, so it could be
that he was also successful in spinning it as a considered part of the bill
instead of a disastrous favor for a very narrow special interest.

------
wrinklz
I believe that our legislative branch is nearly broken. But for the most part,
people are tolerant of their situation. But how long can we go on without a
functioning (i.e. serving the people) legislative branch? That's like driving
down a winding mountain road without brakes. If the grade gets too steep, and
the road too twisty, we'll fly into a ravine.

------
Daniel_Newby
Stack was just a loony murderer.

Planning to die in first field operation == teh crazy.

Planning to survive for indefinitely many field operations == professional
revolutionary.

Let's just be glad he was not visited by what Charlie Stross calls the
Plutonium Fairy.

