Why are you even bothering with some of these people?
Decker is actually one of the more intelligent people on the boards in regards to this stuff so I don't mind having a "debate" with him. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just producing information that I interpret a certain way. I'm not a lawyer, I believe I perceive certain words to have a different meaning than maybe lawyers or people studying law do, so I value his views, even though we may disagree. I think a perfect example of this wording/words situation and how it can sway decisions one way or another becomes clear when you remember Bill Clintons famous, "it depends what the meaning of the word is, is." Lawyers/politicians are great at bending syntax to suit their needs in that kind of way.
But on a deeper level, I just don't understand how anyone could feel combfortable complying with an institution that claims to value the basics of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and then turns around and offers no choice to the citizens as to how they may manage their own property. The word liberty is peppered in all kinds of political speeches but what does it mean? If people took the words seriously I can't see how the Income Tax in particular could exist anymore.
I didn't get a chance to look over all of the answers to my post ,(I will go through it) but one thing that's pretty clear is that when politicians or the forces behind them want something bad enough they push and push and push until they get it even if it may be morally wrong or against the original rule of law.