Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

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?

  ...what is an individual or small business with limited
  resources going to do if they end up stuck in an IRS  
  quagmire?

Vote with their feet.

suggestions? Ireland? Singapore? HK?

Australia's nice. (But I'm biased.)

really? that's usually not on the list (of countries that are more business friendly than the US.)

Requires resources.

How about Emigration? Canada is apparently more reasonable about his particular case. Vote with your feet.

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.

The problem is that no one has any direct control over the system.

It is like any other big company. The call centre people are never responsible for the mess the company made to you. However, if you do not want to devote significant resources, you are pretty much screwed up and yell at the call centre people.

The difference is that, in the most cases, you can just forget about the corporation and live your life. There is no opt-out from the IRS, though.

Actually, if anyone has direct control, it's the Secretary of the Treasury. And as we learned from the confirmation hearings, he doesn't know how to pay his taxes any better than the rest of us.

This was Fromm's particular insight about modern industrial civilisation; in past social and productive orders, it was easier to see your oppressor, often in singularity. But now, not only is his nature infinitely more obscured, but, in fact, he is a legitimately anonymous, organic whole. Nobody in particular to hold responsible.

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.

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.

I don't know if it's worth flying an airplane into someone's office for, but you can't entirely disclaim responsibility if you work for the IRS just because you don't have direct control over it. You're still part of an unjust system even if you're only following orders, after all.

...and killing people who are employed by the system but don't any have direct control over it.

I'm employed by a system which I believe is unjust. It extracts rents from skilled young people as the price of admission into the professional world, and extracts rents from scientists by all sorts of shady methods. I don't have any direct control over it.

But by working for this system, I am partly responsible for it. I can't stop the system, but I don't have to support it (and once my contract expires, I won't).

Any IRS employee who witness the injustice and continues to work for the IRS is partly responsible for it. They could leave, but choose not to. "I just work here" is not an excuse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com