No I didn't, and neither did you. At most, you punched a ballot, and maybe did a bit of campaigning, for the man(or woman) of another man's choosing. You had zero control over what they do in the seat they get with the help of, or in spite of, your negligible actions. It's not a team thing for me. The same form of government covers the globe. I just want as many people as possible to see that we can do better.
I'm sorry, but there's no rational inference that can be drawn from those statements leading to the conclusion that forcible taking is not theft, even if you append them with the accusation that I'm uneducated. I think you're just getting upset that I won't join you in the cognitive dissonance you need to rationalize your articles of faith.
Do you also objection to prison, traffic laws, passport controls, basically anything done by government since a lot of it involves limitations to the actions of individuals? If you want to argue for true anarchy, please just do. You can't just pick at individual aspects of structured society to object to. Nothing is being decided unilaterally that. Again, democratically elected governments determine tax law. The people who are subject to tax law are the same people who, through our representatives, determine tax law and also benefit from services funded by those tax laws.
Actually we did choose our government/representation and empower them to make those decisions for this country and for us. But if you can think of a more perfect government, then draw it up and present it. Either that or drop out of society completely. We've been entertaining the idea lately of selling our home and moving farther out into the country. That's about as far out as we're willing to drop.
Not necessarily. Some of those are necessary to civilization, but none of them are limited to the forms they tend to take under state provision. We couldn't do justice to any of them here without ruining this thread. Again, that's a myriad of cans of worms that would ruin this thread. Here's one argument, just so you don't think I'm trying to shirk my burden of proof. Remember, though, in saying that taxation is necessary, you're making a positive claim too, and it's a very strong claim. It entails that no voluntary provision of the services in question is possible, which is to take on a very heavy burden of proof. A representative is one who is authorized by a person to act on that person's behalf. It is absolutely impossible for an individual to truly represent even a handful, let alone millions, of people that individual has never even met. I've been drilled with those same platitudes my whole life too, but they amount to nothing more than allegorical nonsense perpetuating myth.
Turn that around Maximatic. Living here without paying taxes is theft because you presumptuously and forcibly take, use, and benefit without even asking.
Alright, security, for example, is necessary to civil society. There was much civil society in the Americas before 1838, but no state-funded police existed on this continent until the first one was founded in Boston that year. Obviously, taxation is not necessary for security to be provided. Here's a modern example of what can be done voluntarily, by market forces, where state-funded "security" fails bad enough to get out of the way. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/william-norman-grigg/call-the-anti-police/ [video=youtube;onWC8nNpIco]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco[/video]
When it was passed it only affected the top 5 or 10%. I doubt people would vote to tax themselves more if they had a choice. It was never supposed to be paid by the middle class
Neither is taxation (especially if you're determined to define it simply as theft). My point is that all of those things put impositions on people in exactly the same way taxation does. If you equate taxation with theft, you'd have to equate them with kidnapping, false imprisonment or assault. I'm not saying it's necessary. My only point in this thread has been to state that calling taxation theft is dishonestly simplistic, especially if you try to take it beyond being metaphorical. That's just an extension of the problem "you can't please all of the people all of the time". Representative government is a way to mitigate that problem. Then you should understand how I feel about the phrase "taxation is theft".
Seems pretty obvious that we will continue taxing people Seems pretty obvious that some people consider this as theft Seems pretty obvious that the only way to avoid theft is to leave this country The only way out of being victimized is through the door And, btw.... where are y'all headed where you will not be victimized? And, btw, if you guys were REALLY serious about this objection Why don't you simply live off the grid someplace like Alaska wilderness I am pretty sure the tax man ain't gonna follow you there
This example you gave is a security company, but it is not full-service law enforcement. And the economic model given is that the rich pay for the service, and from the profits, the poor may get service. But let's say we ended tax-supported law enforcement ....How would this work in a practical sense? If you came home to find your house had been burglarized and your stuff taken, would you call "free market" law enforcement? And after their response, would they present you with a bill? If they lifted fingerprints, would that be on the billing? What if they took the time to have the prints sent to the "free market" fingerprint data base, they matched it up to a suspect, a fingerprint expert verified the match, and the "free market police" tracked him down, arrested him, did interviews, did report writing, and transported him to jail? All that takes time. Would you send out an additional bill for those services? And what about jail, courts, judges, and prosecutors for the guy? Bill the victim for those services as well? If you said you couldn't afford it, would there be a secondary investigation - the investigation of your personal finances to see if you could afford it? What if you made a decent middle class living. You're not rich by any means, but not poor either. Your car is parked on a residential street in front of your house. You hear the sound of a crash and hear someone gun their engine and speed off. You go outside and find your car all smashed up. You're the victim of a hit and run accident. The "free market" police show up. They talk to you, take pictures, check with neighbors for witnesses, and then they present you with a bill for $2000. Whoa, whoa, whoa! The free market police only put in about an hour's worth of work! Why so much? Because ... You can afford it, and free market law enforcement has to help all the people who can't afford it, and your $2000 payment makes that possible. I am a retired police officer. I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of people who need police service on a daily basis could not afford to pay for it on their own. So they would have to be taken care of by the relatively few people who could pay for it. What would happen eventually is that the rich wouldn't call for the service unless there was a murder, and the system would fall in on itself financially. Oh and that reminds me. Let's say someone is murdered. Who pays for that investigation? Do you place a lien on the murder victim's estate? What if they have no estate? Maybe sue the victim's parents, spouse, or children? What? Explain to me how this would work on a practical, economic level.
So you're saying that we need taxes for national defense. Okay, let's say I agree with that. Other services you desire could be provided by people willing to sell you/provide you with that service. Other than national defense, where's the need to steal other people's money to acquire stuff you want?
It's hard to say anything good about our system of taxation or the rotten, stinking U. S. Tax Code that allows so many of the big-rich to get away with paying little or nothing because of shelters and loopholes. BUT, the income tax is not unfair or theft, per se, if you are a citizen enjoying the benefits of living here, with all the rights and protection afforded you. We need to have the Tax Code gone through and have ALL the loopholes and shelters permanently removed from it. But neither rich Republicans nor rich Democrats have ever been interested in doing that!
Why spend all that ink on straw man business models that would obviously fail in a real free market? The fact that you can't think of any viable models doesn't mean that others can't. You asked for an example. I showed you one that's in business right now in a city where your ilk failed miserably. I'm glad to see that you read enough about it to come back with a coherent response, but I can tell you're geared up to rebut any information presented to you. Let me just remind you before we go on that the better you understand the arguments and evidence presented by your opposition, the better your rebuttals will be. The middle class person who's car was stolen would more likely be presented with an insurance policy deductible which they would be reimbursed for once the more efficient free-market detective agency hired by the insurance company recovered the vehicle and the thief. Or, they would call something like the Threat Management Center and pay nothing because they they have an ongoing contract with them. Here's Chaos Theory where Bob goes through his insurance models. I have some of my own. I'm sure you could think of a way to provide some kind of security service that poor people could avail themselves of if thy would, if you really put your mind to it. The point is that it's a logistical challenge, not a matter of possibilities. As I said, it's been done before. We can do it again and improve on those models or come up with new ones. For whom, the state, or people?
That would be okay if before the polls, the complex computation of the annual budget should be informed into the voting populace in how income taxes were derived and how it contributes. There should be basis in politicizing a certain vital resource such as tax than blindly make promises that if forcibly realized could put a country into demise.
Well, for example, I want courts of law. I want jails and prisons. I want the kids in my community to go to school. I want my roads and highways fixed. I want parks. I want full-service law enforcement. I want a fire department. No one is stealing my money when I pay for these things through taxation. I understand that I am required by law to pay for these things, but I do so voluntarily. Theft would be an unlawful taking against my will.
You just said "I want" seven times. Then you said that taxation is not theft because you don't mind paying even though you are required to do so by law. What about people who are not you?
In my response to you, I asked 14 questions. You didn't answer them. You did give me one theory about how this would work. If I understand you correctly, insurance would pay for law enforcement and investigative work. Who would pay for the insurance? Everybody, I guess. What if you couldn't afford crime insurance? The majority of crime victims in this country are poorer people. How are they going to pay for "crime insurance"? Are you going to make everyone pay for it? Isn't that the same as taxing them? What if they refuse to pay for it? No criminal justice for them? Of course I'm challenging you! I don't deny it. But I'm not insulting you. I'm just asking the questions. Let's take a look at what you get from a tax-supported, full-service justice system, shall we? - Patrol and deterrence - Emergency response to in-progress crimes or threats to public safety - Traffic crash response - Crime investigation, from minor crimes to major crimes to murder - Forensics - Evidence collection and storage - 911, Communications - Records - County jail - Courtrooms - Judges, Prosecutors, Defense attorneys, clerks - Prisons - Probation and Parole - Appellate and Supreme Courts How do we pay for that in your model? Don't turn it back on me to provide the answers. I already know how we pay for it. I'm asking you how all that gets paid for in your model. All you've suggested so far is some sort of crime insurance. And I haven't even touched on schools, fire departments, roads, bridges, food and medical care for the poor, parks ...... Explain the financial model to me that makes the criminal justice system possible without taxation. I looked at the link you included and read about the book. No more links, though, OK? Explain it to me.
If you notice, when government tried to slip in the income tax, the court stopped them. The trick was for some in congress to change the constitution. Did we the people ask them to change it? I bet you a nickle they did not ask that of congress. The founders installed the correct system that was not theft. You know, it might not be so bad other than the 16th amendment really never got passed. That was where fraud crept in. Joe Banister, formerly IRS law man, did an investigation when he worked for IRS. He did a very careful 2 year study. Turns out those saying the 16th did not get ratified were correct. Joe went to all states to examine the records there. Those records are still there. Waiting for you to see for yourself the law is bogus. Ergo, theft.
What do you mean? Seems like you are operating as if you understand me. Seems not. - - - Updated - - - It never happened to me so why not tell us your story.
Seth friend I was talking not of states, but the Feds. The quite illegal 16th amendment. If you closely examine the IRS, several things crop up. 1. They do not tell you that you MUST pay income taxes. 2. They tell you it is voluntary. That ought to tip you off as to it being a law. 3. To nab you, you must agree to be prosecuted on the form. But for perjury. Mark that down. For perjury. 4. I notice some rejected my video. It is not possible to learn this easy. A good video is the best way for you to start learning. 5. Joe Banister then of the IRS did not believe what I am saying. Joe did get interested in learning so he could debunk it. 6. Joe, whom I have actually met in person, listened to him lecture, years ago, detailed the fraud. Anyway, not only Joe, but I gave a movie made by Aaron Russo, movie director and producer, that hits some points very hard. He talked to the IRS. Asked them a simple question. Show him the tax law. Not regulations, but the actual tax law. They refused to show it to him. Does that seem reasonable to you? When you were a cop and your Chief told you to shake down every third business, saying you had to follow the law, would you wish to see a copy of that law? The IRS is a shake down racket.
Since you are the beneficiary of that alleged "theft" that makes you complicit of the alleged "crime".
