Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
Well, it turns out that I gave myself a tall order. I cannot find any precise definition of what a person is, although there are several precise definitions of different kinds of persons. There are moral persons, physical persons, and juridic persons recognized in the Church, which also recognizes more kinds of persons subsisting outside of the Church. In other words, there appears to be an army of persons (according to the RCC) at work in the world and in heaven., but nowhere can I find what a person is.

However, there are many dissertations on what man and mankind are. I discovered there are four Constitutions of Church government, each purporting to define the role of the Church in the world, one of them being: DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DIGNITATIS HUMANAE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965.

After reading this Constitution and the others, and after reading what I thought were the applicable codes in canon law, I have no choice but to infer that a person is that part of a being that relates to society, and may include groups of people and entities recognizable as one person.

Perhaps I should explain my thinking. On reading these documents (which is not my first time severally, but is my first time in reading them all concurrently) I was struck by the apparent harmony in their reasoning. Whatever people may think of the RCC, it must be acknowledged she is thorough and broad in her explanations of her mission. That being said, she leaves much for individuals in their own consciences to contemplate, leaving them free to accept or reject the Church's conclusions.

Personhood is a metaphysical question. In reading these Constitutions, I did come to a deeper understanding in my own mind about what personhood is. I apprehend better that: a person is a being's expression of self among a community. Self can include groups, or bodies as the Church calls them. The highest example of personhood is the RCC model of the Holy Trinity. One being - God - exists in three persons. These persons are the One's expression of self in the society of humanity. People like to say God is revealed in his persons, which is true.

It appears there is an over-arching system of metaphysical understanding that guides the RCC in her ministrations. It also appears that this understanding pervades other systems of law outside of the Church. While some people might find it offensive to be regarded in society as merely a person, it remains a metaphysical truth that one's being is unreachable to others. Society (other beings, individually or in groups) has no other choice but to see a being's person. So too, one being cannot reach other beings, except through their persons.

I suppose that - as this relates to demanding lawful money - an individual person's rank in society is the real thing at stake. David's comment that all persons are subject to higher powers is interesting in that, it acknowledges personhood as a creature of society, not of an individual being. The question is, is that personhood really subject to society?

If a person is a being's expression of self in society, and society's recognition of it in return, by what authority does society seek to impose its collective will on an individual being? All it can do is assert the collective will against the individual person. Money - in its broadest sense, a medium of exchange - courses through society, carrying with it obligations and benefits to persons. These obligations and benefits are sometimes ill defined, yet they exist ostensibly for the overall good of a society.

Demanding and receiving lawful money ought to be regarded as a person's attempt to assert one's human dignity in society. Moreover, it is not an advancement on or against society, but rather a firm expression of an individual being's existence as part of the divine order. The private credit regime seeks to depart from the divine order, by assuming the One's role as Creator - the regime did create the credit - and imposing private obligations on the holders of its credit. To enter into the private credit regime is to leave behind the One, and submit to the private credit society's collective will.



Maybe this can be of some use:




Deceptive IRS Code Words
"PERSON"

People generally consider the term "person" to mean an individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions", includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax". This misleading description leads most people to believe that it means a tax on individuals.

The legal term "person" has an even more restricted definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter, a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as:

... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a "person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.

Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable. The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other articles and publications relating to income tax, the true meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/append-g.pdf