Right near the beginning of the discussion, I asked group members to indicate if they were criminals, by raising their hands, and led off by sticking mine up first.

Eventually, and rather quickly, every hand went up.

There is honor among thieves, though the “thievery” in play here is of the legal kind, not the moral kind (think: mp3). This represents and opportunity for building community among libertarians, which is largely ignored by the mainstream libertarian movement.

Camp attendees who are following my blog are encouraged to read “The penalty is always death” (which I presented in abbreviated form in several sessions anyway), and the linked “Clown suit defense” articles.

The Consul, an affable man about my age, did his duty. He made certain all the forms were filled out properly, and discussed with me what I am doing. Part of his job is to advise potential renunciants of the consequences, to make certain that they are not insane, under duress or lacking sufficient knowledge of the law to appreciate their action, and to explore all of the un-thought-of possibilities which might lead one to back away from the decision. We chatted a bit about prior renunciants he is aware of. Apparently there have been a good number of them who renounced back in the Vietnam War era as a political protest, only to regret doing so later on and attempt to reclaim their citizenship via the courts, to little avail. Additionally, and interestingly, there have apparently been cases in which cult leaders induced followers to give up their citizenship as part of binding themselves more closely to the cult. When these become deprogrammed and attempt to put their lives back together, they may find sympathy in US courts voiding their renunciation and restoring them to citizenship status.

Anyway, I jumped all the hurdles and through all the hoops he offered, and he accepted that I know what I’m doing — or, at least, that I am well aware of all the risks. Inquiring as to my motives I told him that I’m after a political divorce, and that, no, it doesn’t matter that Obama won the election, as his administration will no doubt continue doing the real work of the people who actually own and direct the American system. I signed all of the documents, read aloud from the Oath of Renunciation a bit to satisfy a “swearing” requirement, and handed all of it over to him.

The final item, not previously known to me, is to fill in and submit an IRS Form 8854, a delightful document entitled “Initial and Annual Expatriation Information Statement”. The IRS wants a full accounting of my situation for the past five years, a statement of assets and liabilities and an income statement. According to the instructions to the form, because I will answer “no” to the question “Do you certify under penalty of perjury that you have complied with all of your tax obligations for the 5 preceding tax years?”, I will become subject to “section 877″, which among other things will require me to file an updated copy of Form 8854 every year for the ten years following my expatriation. The “Penalties” section of the instructions contains this gem:

If you are subject to section 877 and required to file Form 8854 for any tax year, and you fail to file or do not include all the information required by the form or the form includes incorrect information, you will owe a penalty of $10,000 for that year, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

I will have to answer “no” to that question, and thus I will be subject to this penalty, because since 2005 I have not filed a US income tax return. Even though I have had no income subject to US taxation in the last several years, the filing requirement still exists. By the sound of things, and since I do not plan on ever filing an IRS form again after this one, it looks like that by 2019 I will have accumulated $100,000 in penalties, simply for failing to do government-mandated paperwork. A blog doesn’t really allow one to communicate a sense of profound indifference to the fullest extent. Is it possible, grammatically, to be highly willfully neglectful?

So, a bit of weekend work ahead for me as I slog through the 8854 in order to clear the hopefully last bureaucratic hurdle. I have another appointment with the Consul at 2:15pm on Monday, at which I will hand in the Form 8854 and surrender my passport.

A buyer who asked not to be named said: “The price of gold prompted me to visit the Gold Souq in Sharjah. However, most retailers claimed they were sold out. Outlets where gold was available were openly overcharging. They said it was in short supply. The price of 24 carat stood at Dh88.75 but they were openly charging Dh92.50. This is clearly an unfair practice.”

Overcharging? What, pray, ought the penalty be for this heinous crime of charging more than someone would care to pay for a substance like gold, which all of us need to eat and to breathe?

At least Erik — who is clearly not from ’round these parts — gets it mostly right in the comments:

Anyone that thinks it is “unfair” to charge a certain price for gold is misinformed. If you own gold, you should be able to sell it to another person at any rate you choose because it is your gold. I can sell my car at any price I choose, and you’re welcome to purchase it or not. The real “market rate” for gold is simply an average of what people are paying, so if one dealer is selling above that average price then you, as a customer, are welcome to not shop there. This is called an open and free market.
Erik
Dubai, UAE
Posted: October 28, 2008, 09:33

The whole truth, actually, is that there is no such thing as a “market rate” at all. There is only the information which emerges from the knowledge that certain transactions did or did not take place at certain price levels. Averaging doesn’t apply. If it did, over what interval would you take the average? Would last week’s pricing data prior to the 30% spike in market valuation be given equal weight to yesterday’s sustained trades at the new price level but at 10x the volume? At what point would this magic line be drawn, the other side of which was unfair territory?

Entry to nostate.com (hereinafter the “Website”) is restricted by contract. By pressing “Submit” below you freely, fully, explicitly and expressly agree:

• that you shall not, by act or omission, take away any impressions, copies, extracts, derivatives, subsets or samples of this Website or any part thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, copy, store or retransmit any data from this Website or any part thereof,  including but not limited to sequences of or individual characters or individual bits;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, fail upon the Website owner’s request to surrender all energy patterns, tactile sensations, auditory stimuli, mass-energy distribution changes or other media of phenomenal transmission incident to your use of the Website to the Website owner, to become the exclusive property thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, link to, cite, quote or reference the Website or any part thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, speak or otherwise divulge to third parties your knowledge of the Website’s existence, your knowledge of its contents, the contents themselves or the existence of this WEBSITE ACCESS AGREEMENT (hereinafter the “Agreement”) or the Agreement itself, or any part thereof, despite being legally and morally bound by it;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, form memories of the Website or any part thereof or of this Agreement or any part thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, recall, remember, recount, retain, reconstitute, recreate, receive, recover or retransmit the Website or any part thereof or this Agreement or any part thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, fail to exercise due care and prudence in excluding third parties from taking part in your use of the Website in any fashion, including but not limited to by blocking all energy patterns, tactile sensations, auditory stimuli, mass-energy distribution changes or other media of phenomenal transmission incident to your use of the Website such that they cannot pass to third parties;
• that this Agreement is the totality of all contractual relationships between you and the Website owner and that this Agreement supersedes, replaces and annuls all prior contractual relationships between the aforementioned parties;
• that any breach of this Agreement on your part shall subject you to a penalty of three hundred (300) ounces of 99.99% fine gold or two thousand (2,000) hours of forced labor, with that the choice of penalty shall be yours, payable to the Website owner within ten days in the case of gold or within one year in the case of labor;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, attempt to or actually transfer, surrender, hypothecate, pledge, encumber, subordinate, abandon or pass by gift, inheritance or other means any of your rights or duties under this Agreement without prior written consent of the Website owner;
• that should any portion of this Agreement be found to be unenforceable, such finding shall not affect the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement;
• that the term of this Agreement shall begin upon you pressing “Submit” below and shall be perpetual;
• that this Agreement may from time to time be amended or supplemented by the Website owner in written form and with due notice to you;
• that in the event of any dispute or contest involving this Agreement, such dispute or contest shall be submitted to the jurisdiction and binding arbitration of Bob’s Arbitration and Pizza Company, Libertania, Ancapistan, without appeal; and
• that you have entered into this Agreement freely and without duress after careful consideration and understanding of all its contents.

In the spirit of doing only the best things possible for mothers and babies, ACOG and the AMA are now pushing to eliminate a terrible danger to babies and mothers alike: home birth.

Eamon greets the world, at home. Image from chrisandjenni @ flickr.com

Now, babies have been born at home, or in fields or forests or any number of other places for millions of years. I even had the pleasure recently of meeting a young woman who was born on a train in Russia. The distinction between “hospital, medical” birth and anything else is a rather modern invention. Just a hundred years ago in the West, and even today across huge portions of the planet, children were always born at home. Birthing carries risks for both mother and child, and sometimes medical intervention is needed to save lives. In many parts of the world, the expertise and facilities aren’t always there.

From ABC News:

Are Home Births Dangerous?

AMA Says Women Should Use a Hospital — Some Doctors Disagree

The American Medical Association has agreed to support proposed legislation that, some physicians say, could make make having a planned birth in one’s home difficult, to virtually impossible.

As of now, no actual legislation has been drawn up, but the AMA has agreed to back a measure called “Resolution 205,” a request to support the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) position that home births are not safe.

“We are against home births, period,” said Gregory Phillips, an ACOG spokesman.

What does Resolution 205 say?

RESOLVED, That our AMA develop model legislation in support of the concept that the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets standards jointly outlined by the AAP and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers.” (Directive to Take Action)

Jennifer Block, writing for the LA Times, rightly questions what’s going on here:

The AMA’s statement calls for legislation that could be used against women who choose home birth, possibly resulting in criminal child-abuse or neglect charges. The group says this is about safety, but with no credible research to back up its claim, this argument falls flat. Women are simply caught in a turf war over the maternity market, and it would appear that the physicians’ groups are perfectly willing to trample the modern medical ethic of patient autonomy — grounded in our legal rights to self-determination, to liberty and to privacy — in their grab for control.

Block’s op-ed makes a lot of good points, and asks a very cogent question: “Why do U.S. doctors strong-arm women into our standard maternity care system?”

ACOG, the AMA and other organizations like them are, effectively guilds in the medieval sense. Guild membership or approval is required to practice the guildsmen’s trade, manifest in all sort of licensing and education requirements that these groups have managed to write into law with the “objective” criteria for inclusion or exclusion of any given would-be practitioner being left up to those who have already passed whatever arbitrary bar for inclusion they have set, and backed up by the unlimited violence that is the state. That organizations such as these serve to limit the supply of medical services and thereby increase costs to patients while enriching their members has been analyzed in great detail elsewhere.

Born free, born at home. Everett with mom. lobo235 @ flickr.com

Quibbling a bit about how the mechanics of guild exclusionism get written into US law, I doubt that mothers would be penalized for choosing to give birth at home. No, what AMA and ACOG are really after here is the criminalization of midwives, and especially those who aren’t members of the various AMA-approved midwifery guilds or who haven’t passed stringent certification requirements. The guilds don’t give a damn about unlicensed midwives’ patients. What they care about is limiting the supply of childbirth-assistance services, to the benefit of their members’ profits.

ABC’s headline, “Are Home Births Dangerous?”, really might be better written as “What Penalty Should Home-Birthing Mothers and Midwives Face?” AMA/ACOG are calling for legislation. There will be fines and disincentives, penalties and prison terms, police raids and prosecutions, all against midwives practicing a skilled trade that has existed for thousands of years.

But the penalty for violating statist law is always death. Deconstructed, what we see is the physicians’ and obstetricians’ guilds calling for non-guild midwives to be killed for practicing their trade.

Now how is that good for mothers or babies?

Of course we’ll wait for all the “facts” to come out in court, where the deck will be stacked heavily in favor of the trigger-happy uniformed thugs, as usual.

Just remember here, it could have been worse for Mr. Fields. The ultimate penalty, after all, for insufficient obeisance to the State, is death.

UPDATE: New at AlterNet: Why the Police Wouldn’t Tase Me When I Asked Them to

From the Mansfield News Journal, Ohio:

May 12, 2008

Mansfield man’s lawsuit alleges excessive police force

BY LINDA MARTZ
News Journal

MANSFIELD — A West Third Street man has sued Mansfield, claiming police used excessive force in a traffic stop after he suffered head wounds and a collapsed lung. The suit says the injuries required surgery to his ankle, and he spent several days on life support.

Phillip Fields Jr., 36, of 191 West Third St., contends the police department failed to properly train officers on the use of the taser and failed to use good faith investigating his complaint about the incident.

Defendants in the lawsuit, filed May 6 in Richland County Common Pleas Court, are the City of Mansfield, Officers Richard Dittrich, Terry Rogers, Philip Messer Jr., and up to 10 unnamed employees of the police department.

Fields was arrested July 6, 2007, when he pulled into his driveway at 334 West Longview Avenue.

“He was supposedly pulled over because he had an expired license tag. He exited his vehicle and gave his ID, and the officer said he was under arrest,” attorney Daniel R. Mordarski said. “When Mr. Fields tried to find out why, the police officer threatened him with a taser, then actually used the taser on him. He shot him anywhere between 5 and 10 times.”

The lawsuit contends Fields immediately fell to the ground after the taser was first used, and got tangled in the long wires attached to his body via the taser darts. Fields contends he had difficulties complying with Dittrich’s order to place his hands behind his back because of the wires and the electrical current traveling through his body.

Court filings maintain the suspect’s brother Jimmy called the police department asking for additional officers to respond to the scene to stop Dittrich from using the taser again. He tried to remove the wires from his brother, and was arrested.

“Phillip went inside the house with his mom and sat at the kitchen table and had a cigarette and waited for police to come for him,” Mordarski said.

According to the lawsuit, a team of officers entered the house and tackled Fields after he held his arms out and told police he would come with them. Fields claims he was kicked and punched by Officers Rogers, Dittrich and Messer Jr. He contends he received a serious ankle injury, a serious head injury, burns from electricity, a collapsed lung and other injuries that required him to be on a medical life support system at the hospital.

The lawsuit alleges the city tried to cover up the use of excessive force and minimize the extent of Phillips’ injuries — with only three officers filling out a Response to Resistance/Aggression Report, listing Fields only injury was a minor cut to the head or forehead.

The lawsuit said Fields was taken to the hospital and remained in intensive care and on a ventilator for several days, with severe injuries.

“It does appear that he had some memory loss and some pretty difficult emotional distress,” Mordarski said.

According to Mordarski, an internal affairs investigation conducted by the city “attempted to justify the actions of the officers, rather than actually investigate the details of the brutal attack.”

The lawsuit contends the city took no action to discipline any of the officers, and tacitly authorized their conduct.

“I don’t know anything about it,” Mansfield Service-Safety Director Ron Kreuter said. “This is the first I’ve heard of it.”

Kreuter said he wasn’t sure if the citizens police review board has looked into the incident.

“I imagine if there was a use of force case, it went through the review board, because we take everything through them, where a use of force is involved.”

Field’s attorney said the 36-year-old’s past history of arrest should not have made a difference in how officers treated him.

“The Constitution says that a police department can only use a reasonable amount of force. Mr. Fields was being arrested for a non-violent traffic violation,” Mordarski said. “They cannot use a taser to simply get a defendant to comply with the order of a police officer.”

Mordarski said Monday a jury trial will be sought, along with payment of Fields’ medical costs, as well as some changes in police department procedures.

“Just based upon what we’ve learned so far, we believe he (Dittrich) either was not adequately trained in the use of the taser, or that he disregarded what he learned. It’s a tragic situation for Phillip Fields, being abused and beaten and put in the hospital for an expired license violation.”