Peace and welcome. welcome peace

Peace to all.

Abdun Nur, none of what follows is meant as personal attack. I am only stating the obvious about the content of the SOL website.

Beyond absurd, it is incoherent in too many ways to enumerate. Further, in its ridiculous confabulation about the development of Common Law, it appears to have adopted some bizarre "theories" of the "sovereign citizen" whackos.

Some of its believers have made serious disruptions of discussions in this Forum in which most of us are concerned with taking our guidance from the Quran, rather than rejecting the Quran and our God-given common sense too.

It says there is to be no government, but it provides for plenty of government -- "administrators," Court personnel, law enforcement. Labeling all that as "administration" does not make it not a government.

It would provide for "medical care" from a Doctor who rejects the learning of modern Medicine -- and what would be the chance of that Doctor being a Medical Doctor, huh? -- and whose "medical care" would consist of providing vitamin and mineral supplements and having available distilled water and oxygen to administer. If I recall correctly, it says that in a hypothetical community of one thousand families, that "medical care" would be available to each family for a premium of some twenty ounces of silver a year. What a great bargain! ... for somebody, but certainly not for any suckers who would go for that. One can get a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement for less than the cost of a half ounce of silver for a year's supply. One can get a water distillation device for less than the cost of three ounces of silver; however, since most use of distilled water is for machinery and medicinal solutions, most people never have any reason even to buy a distillation device. A gallon of distilled water costing less than a gram of silver goes a long, long way in a steam iron.

I looked at some of the SOL site that was pointed to by a member on a recent thread here to offer explanations of claims that member was asked to clarify.

There was the claim that humans can have no property, that everything in creation belongs to Allah. That is just another way of stating the obvious fact that when we leave this earthly life, we do not take anything (worldly) with us.

SOL's system is for people to act as owners of land, watermelons, whatever -- occupying, controlling, using, conveying, etc. -- in short, having all of what are called the incidents of ownership. Of course any person's ownership of anything is necessarily limited in time. The rights we call incidents of ownership are what makes what is called ownership. Did you see on that site so much argument for indefeasible title to land? Ownership is ownership.

As for the watermelon being exchanged for money or else of value -- SOL indicates that the watermelon is Allah's and is transferred for free, that only the farmer's time and labor are sold. Yes, the farmer is compensated for time and labor, but if time and labor were the subject of the transaction, the farmer would be hired out to work for another. Who properly has possession of the watermelon before and who after the transaction? Who has the right to eat it, give it away, dispose of it, exercise whatever incidents of ownership over the watermelon before and who after the transaction in which it is transferred? The sale of a watermelon is the sale of a watermelon. The sale of a watermelon transfers ownership of the watermelon.

There was the claim that there should be no government, that we should live as ancient Britons without government, and we were pointed to the SOL site indicating regulation by government there back to ancient times. Government is government.

There was the claim that there is to be no taxation. SOL calls for compulsory contributions to (assessments for) a community "pot" for community purposes. That would be taxation. That would be taxation by a governmental entity.

It is truly amazing to me that anyone can eat up such incoherence as SOL writes.

Grasshopper, only in SOL's alternate reality are those things supposed to be free. You might notice also that in SOLalaland purchases and sales of real estate and other property (such as the watermelon) are assumed, and that such things as utility services are to be available only for payment of user fees. Reality check -- Why do you suppose SOL is not giving you your living and every comfort you desire? Why are you not giving the other inhabitants of the world their livings and every comfort they desire? Please explain your theory that you are so entitled and not so obligated -- and that you should not even be responsible to provide for your own wants?

.

Did God make you and/or SOL manager of the Universe outside SOL's alternate reality? Apparently the rest of this Universe missed the memo on that. Did God tell you that committing theft and/or any other lawlessness would be excusable for the reason that somewhere someone might be doing something not to your liking?

Let us be reasonable and interpret the Quran. Clearly, it assumes private property, not to be stolen, and uneven distribution of wealth. Its guidance covers such things as participation in ordinary commerce; honoring contractual commitments; forgiveness of indebtedness in some cases; fair dealing with others, as in using honest measurements in the trading (sales/purchases) of goods; spending; sharing with others not so blessed materially; and supporting one's (properly dependent) dependents. No particular currency is defined and prescribed for us, but that is not necessary to understanding what is meant and that using and participating in some monetary system(s) would necessarily be involved. Currency varies from time to time and place to place; anything recognized as money functions for those purposes.

---

SOL's first words I am not a baby, I am an infant.

I do not understand your question(s).

If you mean those incoherent claims that ownership is not ownership, a sale is not a sale, government is not government, taxation is not taxation -- all those are from SOL's website.

Did you see the one about how renting out residential real estate or acquiring property to enter the residential property landlord occupation so violates his nebulous notion of "Natural Law" that SOL says it warrants forfeiture of land title (which SOL also says should be indefeasible by any means, while SOL also says that there is to be no private ownership of anything), unless the landlord acquires the rental property by inheritance and needs rental income, in which case the intolerable landlord occupation is acceptable?

That one is on the same page where SOL condemns copyrights and copyright rights as violative of "Natural Law" -- and what was that "Natural Law" supposed to be about -- not encroaching and not interfering with others having the "fruits" or benefits of their efforts, right -- so when you think that this stuff could not get any more incoherent, wait, it gets even more so. There is SOL's copyright indication on the website pages.

I got that from more than one place on the SOL website. It alternately describes the compulsory contributions to fund governmental functions as voluntary and largely voluntary. It sets out a rationale that (what SOL indicates is the freely entered choice of) participating or even living in human society, in a place with others -- in short, being at any geographic place that has a cluster of human settlement -- is a voluntary deal to have that society's and local government's benefits and the obligation to pay for them; and further, that anyone not agreeing to that deal must depart from the community and their (always but only sometimes) indefeasibly owned place in the community, presumably to be cast out to live as a hermit in some unclaimed wilderness where no other humans would live and where no sovereign would claim dominion. It does not square at all with SOL's also arguing the opposite(s) against any social contract notions.

Did you see the one where SOL rants of persons being forced -- yes, forced -- to pay automobile insurance premiums?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Peace.

Government is government, no matter what other labels may be used. If it functions as a government, it is a government. Different terms do not change its substance.

Each of the United States has its own government.

It is clear that the Quran assumed governments. Notice that the Quran directed Mohammed's group to honor its treaty obligations. Notice also that the Quran gave them guidance for defensive warfare. The guidance that there is to be no compulsion as to religion (or faith) is also a limit ordered for government(s).

---

SOL's first words I am not a baby, I am an infant.

Welcome to Free-Minds.

Arthur Koestler wrote a good bit relating to Synchronicity in The Case Of The Midwife Toad and much more in depth in The Roots Of Coincidence. I recommend those books to you. It is fascinating stuff, and yes, when apparent synchronicity draws one's notice, it does get one wondering about its having meaning.

I saw two shadow beings, one soon after another, or one shadow being twice, within just a few minutes one afternoon about thirty years ago. A few hours later I learned that a family member had died at about the time I had seen the shadow being/s.

Rana, I have wondered also about that part of the Quran's teaching.

I was born to a couple way, way up there near the very limits in the scale of personality disorders. They are absolutely evil beings. Thanks to God, I survived their cruelty, and I was not with them for long. My life has been much better with them out of it.

What does the Quran mean by reference to "parents" where it tells us of duty to parents? Where it gives direction to parents, those directions pertain to parenting. I cannot believe the duties or obligations (kindness and support) are meant to run only one way when they never ran the other way.

Peace and Blessings for you also.

I don't personally see it, but I am never here.

hmm

Welcome back! )

Peace and welcome. May God continue to bless and guide you.

Peace and welcome, Ahmad Ammar.

If managing your own website is too much for you, why not just participate in this website here?

Child, you have missed my point. I was not arguing against the Quran in citing other scriptures; I was showing you that the Quran, a protected book, indeed gives confirmation of a good deal of content of prior scriptures.

Notice also that in the verses you cited the Quran addresses one element of a claim of some of the contemporaries of Jesus, one that persists to this day, that claim being that he was a magician (or sorcerer) from Egypt. We are informed in New Testament scripture that early in his life, the immediate family (or household) of Jesus relocated to Egypt. Even this reference to that mistaken belief about him (that he was a magician), with silence (or no refutation) as to the geographic element (from Egypt) -- seems at least to leave open the possibility that earlier in life he had lived in Egypt, as the Bible story indicates.

I do not accept your premise that "because it is said that the dead cannot come back" -- said by whom? -- that these reported miracles associated with Jesus could not have happened. God's messengers showed clear signs as proof of their authority to deliver direction from God. Both the Quran and prior scriptures make clear that the miraculous proofs were brought about by God's power and with God's direction of the messengers. The Quran assures us that God can do (cause) anything by willing/ordering it.

As for Satan having misled Jesus from his mission, not likely. In the New Testament we are told of Satan's having urged Jesus to work miracles as tests or proofs (proofs for Satan only). Jesus refused to tempt (or request of) God for any such satisfaction for Satan. Jesus was in service to God and would not serve Satan in the least. Jesus was a messenger to humans; it was not his mission to prove anything to Satan.

Quote from morninglight on May 21, 2012, 121352 PM
The tax (or other) money we pay to the taxing (or any other) entity ceases being ours when it is paid.

In other words;

Lordfox makes a delicious chocolate cake.
Morninglight steals a piece of the cake.
The time, tears, sweat and blood of the poor lordfox are to be ignored, because the piece of the cake is now morninglight's.

No, child, what you argue for is like this Lordfox goes to a restaurant where he purchases and enjoys a delicious roast beef sandwich with spicy brown mustard and kosher dill pickle chips. Before lordfox leaves the restaurant, he overhears a party of other patrons stating their intention that following their meal there, they will go home and have some beer. Lordfox goes across the street to rob a bank. Lordfox rationalizes that he is only taking back his "own" money that the restaurant "stole" from him to support or enable substance abuse.

Peace and blessings to you too, child.

That is just great that you got tickets. I skipped my classes one day to wait outside in the cold all day long for Tunnel Of Love tickets. I went to the shows two consecutive nights.

At these linked items the artist presently known as Yusuf talks about the question (issue) about music. There is some reference to the Quran and some to hadith.

http//www.yusufislam.com/faq/c673d6e1874727cc469c62b0e4645d7b/

http//www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241774025368229.html

In the passages you cite there is reference to other miracles associated with Jesus. It is clear that he acknowledges God's power and God's will in those miracles being worked.

In the Arabic Infancy Gospel, we have the story of the children who had hidden from Jesus having been transformed into goats. Their transformation was witnessed by the women who had denied to Jesus that the children were in their presence.

In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, besides accounts of other miraculous signs, we have the stories of the animation of clay birds, the instantaneous healings of grave injuries, and the resurrections of decedents.

In the New Testament, we have stories of other healings and of the resurrection of Lazarus. In the New Testament accounts Jesus says that the miracles are the work of God who sent him.

The Quran is, as it says, a confirmation of the scriptures sent before.

Peace, Adel. I know that Cuba is a lovely place and that tourism has long been its leading industry. No, I do not think it is anything like Somalia. I just had an impulse to try to inject some humor there, so I added the suggestion of Cuba and that link to a (comedy show) video clip -- a bad idea, clearly, and I regret any confusion I caused by adding reference to Cuba. -[ I have lived in Latin America, where I missed so much about North American life, so much convenience and much in the way of consumer goods availability.

You did not respond to the questions about what you mean by "taking of money" from banks.

Taking money from banks.. does the 'money' (in whatever form) belong to you?
If yes.. fine...
Salam / Peace

are you talking about interest?

As for "taking of money" from banks -- If you mean withdrawing one's own (credited) funds, or if you mean (properly) collecting payment(s) through the banking system, why any concern about such being characterized as stealing? Please explain. Please speak plainly.

---

Democrats, religious.. skip this thread.

As the present system is usurious, and we gain not even the 10% of the fruits of our labor, can the 'taking of money' (to not say 'stealing' because you are only taking what is yours) from banks really be regarded as immoral ?

As for "the present system" permitting usurious practices -- Nobody is required to engage (directly) in usurious transactions. One's doing business with a party who may be on either side of other, usurious transactions does not make one a party to usury.

God assures us in the Quran that the right path (or righteous living) is not to be particularly burdensome, but easy enough for us to follow. Modern life would be difficult indeed with no transactions within the present monetary system.

As for "taking of money" from banks -- If you mean withdrawing one's own (credited) funds, or if you mean (properly) collecting payment(s) through the banking system, why any concern about such being characterized as stealing? Please explain. Please speak plainly.

As for your claim that "we gain not even the 10% of the fruits of our labor" -- You seem to be claiming that your effective income tax rate exceeds ninety percent (?). Here are the present tax rates on taxable income for your indicated location. I hope you will find them helpful with your math.

http//www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

---

SOL's first words I am not a baby, I am an infant.

Are you joking ?

No, grasshopper, I am not. I am not a party to usury for making deposits and collections at a bank that makes loans; I am not a party to usury for buying groceries or other goods at a store operated by a company that uses financing to add more stores; etc. The facts that I make transactions within the monetary system and that others may be lending or borrowing within the monetary system do not make me a usurer.

Do you live with your parents ?

No, grasshopper, I do not. Do you live with your parents?

Add the cost of electricity, water, the cost of transportation, the cost of phone contracts, the cost of education, the cost of 'rent' or/and the purchase of land etc. things that are to be free, but are merchandised for the direct benefit of the elite, and you will see what I am talking about.

Grasshopper, please refer again to those income tax charts to which I provided a link in my prior post. The nontaxable part of income is set to keep people from being taxed out of their basic needs. You enumerate items for consumption that are not essential to living. Free and/or subsidized education is offered by your government. Health care services are provided by your government. A great deal of expense in lifestyle is up to the consumer. People make their own judgments and choices about things such as housing, clothing, foods, and modes of transportation to use. Some live in palaces, some in apartments, some in ordinary houses, and some in tents, as examples; some travel by private aircraft, some by taxi, some by ordinary automobile, some by public transportation, and some by bicycle, as examples.

Add the cost of electricity, water, the cost of transportation, the cost of phone contracts, the cost of education, the cost of 'rent' or/and the purchase of land etc. things that are to be free, but are merchandised for the direct benefit of the elite, and you will see what I am talking about.

Grasshopper, only in SOL's alternate reality are those things supposed to be free. You might notice also that in SOLalaland purchases and sales of real estate and other property (such as the watermelon) are assumed, and that such things as utility services are to be available only for payment of user fees. Reality check -- Why do you suppose SOL is not giving you your living and every comfort you desire? Why are you not giving the other inhabitants of the world their livings and every comfort they desire? Please explain your theory that you are so entitled and not so obligated -- and that you should not even be responsible to provide for your own wants?

My point is that most of our 'money' (which is really not 'money' anyway but mere paper) is being stolen by the leading class, and so to illegally ('illegal' applies to their unlawful and immoral legislation) take from the bank, is really to take back part of what is being stolen from you anyway.

Grasshopper, money is whatever the law says it is. When and where the law says that money is some paper representing debt, or that it is some electronic indications in banking system computers, then that is what money/currency is, and that is the customary mode of payment for goods, services, etc.

The tax (or other) money we pay to the taxing (or any other) entity ceases being ours when it is paid.

Most everyone disagrees with at least some policy of their government. Citizenship and its obligations do not make the citizenry responsible for all governmental policies and actions. Most everyone in First World countries enjoys many benefits from government policy and government spending.

Deposits and some other transactions done with banks enable bank lending, but do not necessarily result in bank loan arrangements. If nobody were to take their loan bait, there would be no such lending. If governments were not to take their loan bait, there would be no theft by inflation. The only control or influence we have as to government spending and government borrowing is in voting in elections.

Did God make you and/or SOL manager of the Universe outside SOL's alternate reality? Apparently the rest of this Universe missed the memo on that. Did God tell you that committing theft and/or any other lawlessness would be excusable for the reason that somewhere someone might be doing something not to your liking?

Let us not interpret the Qu'ran and be reasonable. I have only read that living righteously is not hard, but left to know is if the verse alludes to life in a truly islamic society, or to the present one. I opt for the first.

Let us be reasonable and interpret the Quran. Clearly, it assumes private property, not to be stolen, and uneven distribution of wealth. Its guidance covers such things as participation in ordinary commerce; honoring contractual commitments; forgiveness of indebtedness in some cases; fair dealing with others, as in using honest measurements in the trading (sales/purchases) of goods; spending; sharing with others not so blessed materially; and supporting one's (properly dependent) dependents. No particular currency is defined and prescribed for us, but that is not necessary to understanding what is meant and that using and participating in some monetary system(s) would necessarily be involved. Currency varies from time to time and place to place; anything recognized as money functions for those purposes.

Let us not interpret the Qu'ran and be reasonable. I have only read that living righteously is not hard, but left to know is if the verse alludes to life in a truly islamic society, or to the present one. I opt for the first.

Perhaps you would have more appreciation for your present situation and the practical challenges presented with different societal conditions if you were to take a nice long vacation in Somalia. Or Cuba.

http//www.zimbio.com/watch/SPDnyA1yLuN/Message+American+People/Saturday+Night+Live

God assures us in the Quran that the right path (or righteous living) is not to be particularly burdensome, but easy enough for us to follow. Modern life would be difficult indeed with no transactions within the present monetary system.

By the second sentence, I can see that you are an egoist, you agree that living and abiding to the rules (for example, to give taxes) of the actual society, would lead you to an easy and happy life, even though your own money is used to (not exclusively, so do not annoy me) finance atrocious crimes.

I hope you will be man enough to stand before your creator, and admit to all of this.

your own money is used to (not exclusively, so do not annoy me) finance atrocious crimes.

No, grasshopper, what God wills to make my money is mine, and mine for only whatever time it is mine; others' money is subject to others' uses. It is both a blessing and a test.

you agree that living and abiding to the rules (for example, to give taxes) of the actual society, would lead you to an easy and happy life

No, grasshopper, nothing is assured any of us except for God's assurances.

Grasshopper, while you are bashing your fellow humans as (imagined) criminal, juvenile, elitist, egoistic, etc., persons for disagreeing with you or asking you to make your statements clear, it seems to escape your notice who seems to be showing those very traits -- presuming to banish others from participating in discussions on this site; pouting out loud that the rest of the Universe is not conforming to your imagined entitlements of a free living in your desired lifestyle and at others' expense; expressing your sense of entitlement to be above/beyond the laws of civilized society for your presumed excuse that somewhere someone might be doing something of which you would not approve; appointing yourself a judge of others' worthiness as Muslims; taking SOL's incoherent alternate reality misguidance over the Quran's sufficient guidance sent by God; etc.

---

SOL's first words I am not a baby, I am an infant.

Democrats, religious.. skip this thread.

As the present system is usurious, and we gain not even the 10% of the fruits of our labor, can the 'taking of money' (to not say 'stealing' because you are only taking what is yours) from banks really be regarded as immoral ?

As for "the present system" permitting usurious practices -- Nobody is required to engage (directly) in usurious transactions. One's doing business with a party who may be on either side of other, usurious transactions does not make one a party to usury.

God assures us in the Quran that the right path (or righteous living) is not to be particularly burdensome, but easy enough for us to follow. Modern life would be difficult indeed with no transactions within the present monetary system.

As for "taking of money" from banks -- If you mean withdrawing one's own (credited) funds, or if you mean (properly) collecting payment(s) through the banking system, why any concern about such being characterized as stealing? Please explain. Please speak plainly.

As for your claim that "we gain not even the 10% of the fruits of our labor" -- You seem to be claiming that your effective income tax rate exceeds ninety percent (?). Here are the present tax rates on taxable income for your indicated location. I hope you will find them helpful with your math.

http//www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

---

SOL's first words I am not a baby, I am an infant.

The word is "Ummat", and "Ummat" correlate with "Society" rather than "Nation"...
Every society should have an 'administrator' but not a 'government'...

Kingship???? And pass his uncontrolled / unlegislated absolute power to his own progeny??
You must read the "House Of Saud" or "House Of Hashem" or "Bashar Assad" version of the Quran.. rotfl rotfl

The outright rejection over the concept of "Kingship" thus automatically granting power to the king's own son (or whomever else he wishes) without any consultation and agreement from the people is what makes Mr. Hussein Bin Ali got beheaded around 1400 years ago..

You're mentioning the functionality of 'administration' and not 'government'...
The real difference is on the 'military'.. or put it simply... the "State Government of California" is an 'administration' and not a 'government'... While the "Federal Government of US" IS a government..

Salam / Peace

Peace.

Government is government, no matter what other labels may be used. If it functions as a government, it is a government. Different terms do not change its substance.

Each of the United States has its own government.

It is clear that the Quran assumed governments. Notice that the Quran directed Mohammed's group to honor its treaty obligations. Notice also that the Quran gave them guidance for defensive warfare. The guidance that there is to be no compulsion as to religion (or faith) is also a limit ordered for government(s).

---

SOL's first words I am not a baby, I am an infant.

That appears to be a Hate site belonging to an Islamophobe. It attacks the Quran in a way typical of those ignorant of it, by "spinning" verses out of context. It links to other Hate sites.

Where do you see that Abdun Nur implies you need to pay taxes ( and you even said compulsory lol ) in his ideal community?

I got that from more than one place on the SOL website. It alternately describes the compulsory contributions to fund governmental functions as voluntary and largely voluntary. It sets out a rationale that (what SOL indicates is the freely entered choice of) participating or even living in human society, in a place with others -- in short, being at any geographic place that has a cluster of human settlement -- is a voluntary deal to have that society's and local government's benefits and the obligation to pay for them; and further, that anyone not agreeing to that deal must depart from the community and their (always but only sometimes) indefeasibly owned place in the community, presumably to be cast out to live as a hermit in some unclaimed wilderness where no other humans would live and where no sovereign would claim dominion. It does not square at all with SOL's also arguing the opposite(s) against any social contract notions.

Did you see the one where SOL rants of persons being forced -- yes, forced -- to pay automobile insurance premiums?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Wut? Where did you get that from?

I do not understand your question(s).

If you mean those incoherent claims that ownership is not ownership, a sale is not a sale, government is not government, taxation is not taxation -- all those are from SOL's website.

Did you see the one about how renting out residential real estate or acquiring property to enter the residential property landlord occupation so violates his nebulous notion of "Natural Law" that SOL says it warrants forfeiture of land title (which SOL also says should be indefeasible by any means, while SOL also says that there is to be no private ownership of anything), unless the landlord acquires the rental property by inheritance and needs rental income, in which case the intolerable landlord occupation is acceptable?

That one is on the same page where SOL condemns copyrights and copyright rights as violative of "Natural Law" -- and what was that "Natural Law" supposed to be about -- not encroaching and not interfering with others having the "fruits" or benefits of their efforts, right -- so when you think that this stuff could not get any more incoherent, wait, it gets even more so. There is SOL's copyright indication on the website pages.

I looked at some of the SOL site that was pointed to by a member on a recent thread here to offer explanations of claims that member was asked to clarify.

There was the claim that humans can have no property, that everything in creation belongs to Allah. That is just another way of stating the obvious fact that when we leave this earthly life, we do not take anything (worldly) with us.

SOL's system is for people to act as owners of land, watermelons, whatever -- occupying, controlling, using, conveying, etc. -- in short, having all of what are called the incidents of ownership. Of course any person's ownership of anything is necessarily limited in time. The rights we call incidents of ownership are what makes what is called ownership. Did you see on that site so much argument for indefeasible title to land? Ownership is ownership.

As for the watermelon being exchanged for money or else of value -- SOL indicates that the watermelon is Allah's and is transferred for free, that only the farmer's time and labor are sold. Yes, the farmer is compensated for time and labor, but if time and labor were the subject of the transaction, the farmer would be hired out to work for another. Who properly has possession of the watermelon before and who after the transaction? Who has the right to eat it, give it away, dispose of it, exercise whatever incidents of ownership over the watermelon before and who after the transaction in which it is transferred? The sale of a watermelon is the sale of a watermelon. The sale of a watermelon transfers ownership of the watermelon.

There was the claim that there should be no government, that we should live as ancient Britons without government, and we were pointed to the SOL site indicating regulation by government there back to ancient times. Government is government.

There was the claim that there is to be no taxation. SOL calls for compulsory contributions to (assessments for) a community "pot" for community purposes. That would be taxation. That would be taxation by a governmental entity.

It is truly amazing to me that anyone can eat up such incoherence as SOL writes.