Celebrating Secession?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
101

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The government forces me to work to the benefit of others under threat of violence and deprivation of rights. That is the truth of it. Don’t get mad at me for refusing to play word games.[/quote]

You’ve read too much Harry Browne[/quote]

I’ve read no harry browne. the funny thing is that I’m not in any way stating opinion. What I stated was an absolute fact. People who are getting upset with that need to re-evaluate some things. They are arguing against the facts, not me.[/quote]

You derive a benefit from taxes. There are social services made available to you, you can write off a home mortgage, you drive on paved roads, have electricity 24 hours a day, you can send your children to school for free, there are state university systems that provide (relatively) cheap education and so on. All because of taxes. THAT is the truth of it.

It says nowhere in the Constitution that you have the right to not pay taxes; you have the right to representation along with taxation. If you do not pay taxes, you have broken the law and nowhere are you guaranteed the right to break the law. If you or anyone else thinks that there is any correlation whatsoever between slavery and taxation you are wrong. There is NO benefit derived from being enslaved, but there clearly is with taxation.

Not all taxes are good, but NO slavery is good. To equate the two or to argue that the two are similar in any way is beyond ignorant.

[/quote]

But slaves derive benefits from their labor too, they have clothes, food and shelter.

I am sure that they would like to keep more of what they earn, but so do taxed citizens.

So the fundamental difference is what again?

Plus, slaves who refused to work or fled broke the law too, gasp, so how does that change anything?

102

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The government forces me to work to the benefit of others under threat of violence and deprivation of rights. That is the truth of it. Don’t get mad at me for refusing to play word games.[/quote]

You’ve read too much Harry Browne[/quote]

I’ve read no harry browne. the funny thing is that I’m not in any way stating opinion. What I stated was an absolute fact. People who are getting upset with that need to re-evaluate some things. They are arguing against the facts, not me.[/quote]

You derive a benefit from taxes. There are social services made available to you, you can write off a home mortgage, you drive on paved roads, have electricity 24 hours a day, you can send your children to school for free, there are state university systems that provide (relatively) cheap education and so on. All because of taxes. THAT is the truth of it.

It says nowhere in the Constitution that you have the right to not pay taxes; you have the right to representation along with taxation. If you do not pay taxes, you have broken the law and nowhere are you guaranteed the right to break the law. If you or anyone else thinks that there is any correlation whatsoever between slavery and taxation you are wrong. There is NO benefit derived from being enslaved, but there clearly is with taxation.

Not all taxes are good, but NO slavery is good. To equate the two or to argue that the two are similar in any way is beyond ignorant.
[/quote]

So you see things that the government can take from someone else to give to someone else.

What you can’t see is what does not come about because it was taken from the original owners and not given the benefit of voluntary exchange.

The goods you mention do not necessarily need to come about via theft – especially since the government, in order to bring them about, must hire labor away from the free market in the first place.

103

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The government forces me to work to the benefit of others under threat of violence and deprivation of rights. That is the truth of it. Don’t get mad at me for refusing to play word games.[/quote]

You’ve read too much Harry Browne[/quote]

I’ve read no harry browne. the funny thing is that I’m not in any way stating opinion. What I stated was an absolute fact. People who are getting upset with that need to re-evaluate some things. They are arguing against the facts, not me.[/quote]

You derive a benefit from taxes. There are social services made available to you, you can write off a home mortgage, you drive on paved roads, have electricity 24 hours a day, you can send your children to school for free, there are state university systems that provide (relatively) cheap education and so on. All because of taxes. THAT is the truth of it.

It says nowhere in the Constitution that you have the right to not pay taxes; you have the right to representation along with taxation. If you do not pay taxes, you have broken the law and nowhere are you guaranteed the right to break the law. If you or anyone else thinks that there is any correlation whatsoever between slavery and taxation you are wrong. There is NO benefit derived from being enslaved, but there clearly is with taxation.

Not all taxes are good, but NO slavery is good. To equate the two or to argue that the two are similar in any way is beyond ignorant.

[/quote]

BS slaves recieved food and houses est. some slaves lead a fairly wealthy lifestyle. What makes it slavery is the master getting to decide how much the slaves get to keep of their own work.

Secondly, social security and your social programs will be broke and collapsed by the time I retire. They are fucking me with no reach around whatsoever. Second;y, the fact that you use the term free talking about government services (in a discussion of taxation no less) shows you have no concept of reality. Because the truth is that the government “service” financially cost far far far more than the private alternatives with poorer results.

FREE! HAH! You’re a loon. They take my money at gunpoint, and you have the nerve to call the piddly amount they give back free. OH it’s free, after they’ve taken what they want. Good gosh, I can’t even talk to you anymore.

104

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The government forces me to work to the benefit of others under threat of violence and deprivation of rights. That is the truth of it. Don’t get mad at me for refusing to play word games.[/quote]

You’ve read too much Harry Browne[/quote]

I’ve read no harry browne. the funny thing is that I’m not in any way stating opinion. What I stated was an absolute fact. People who are getting upset with that need to re-evaluate some things. They are arguing against the facts, not me.[/quote]

You derive a benefit from taxes. There are social services made available to you, you can write off a home mortgage, you drive on paved roads, have electricity 24 hours a day, you can send your children to school for free, there are state university systems that provide (relatively) cheap education and so on. All because of taxes. THAT is the truth of it.

It says nowhere in the Constitution that you have the right to not pay taxes; you have the right to representation along with taxation. If you do not pay taxes, you have broken the law and nowhere are you guaranteed the right to break the law. If you or anyone else thinks that there is any correlation whatsoever between slavery and taxation you are wrong. There is NO benefit derived from being enslaved, but there clearly is with taxation.

Not all taxes are good, but NO slavery is good. To equate the two or to argue that the two are similar in any way is beyond ignorant.

[/quote]

BS slaves recieved food and houses est. some slaves lead a fairly wealthy lifestyle. What makes it slavery is the master getting to decide how much the slaves get to keep of their own work.

Secondly, social security and your social programs will be broke and collapsed by the time I retire. They are fucking me with no reach around whatsoever. Second;y, the fact that you use the term free talking about government services (in a discussion of taxation no less) shows you have no concept of reality. Because the truth is that the government “service” financially cost far far far more than the private alternatives with poorer results.

FREE! HAH! You’re a loon. They take my money at gunpoint, and you have the nerve to call the piddly amount they give back to free. OH it’s free, after they’ve taken what they want. Good gosh, I can’t even talk to you anymore.[/quote]

Why not use his jargon.

The food and shelter slaves received were free too.

105

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The government forces me to work to the benefit of others under threat of violence and deprivation of rights. That is the truth of it. Don’t get mad at me for refusing to play word games.[/quote]

You’ve read too much Harry Browne[/quote]

I’ve read no harry browne. the funny thing is that I’m not in any way stating opinion. What I stated was an absolute fact. People who are getting upset with that need to re-evaluate some things. They are arguing against the facts, not me.[/quote]

You derive a benefit from taxes. There are social services made available to you, you can write off a home mortgage, you drive on paved roads, have electricity 24 hours a day, you can send your children to school for free, there are state university systems that provide (relatively) cheap education and so on. All because of taxes. THAT is the truth of it.

It says nowhere in the Constitution that you have the right to not pay taxes; you have the right to representation along with taxation. If you do not pay taxes, you have broken the law and nowhere are you guaranteed the right to break the law. If you or anyone else thinks that there is any correlation whatsoever between slavery and taxation you are wrong. There is NO benefit derived from being enslaved, but there clearly is with taxation.

Not all taxes are good, but NO slavery is good. To equate the two or to argue that the two are similar in any way is beyond ignorant.

[/quote]

BS slaves recieved food and houses est. some slaves lead a fairly wealthy lifestyle. What makes it slavery is the master getting to decide how much the slaves get to keep of their own work.

Secondly, social security and your social programs will be broke and collapsed by the time I retire. They are fucking me with no reach around whatsoever. Second;y, the fact that you use the term free talking about government services (in a discussion of taxation no less) shows you have no concept of reality. Because the truth is that the government “service” financially cost far far far more than the private alternatives with poorer results.

FREE! HAH! You’re a loon. They take my money at gunpoint, and you have the nerve to call the piddly amount they give back to free. OH it’s free, after they’ve taken what they want. Good gosh, I can’t even talk to you anymore.[/quote]

Why not use his jargon.

The food and shelter slaves received were free too.

[/quote]

lol. Right. The slaves grew all the food, BUT that .1% of the food they produced they received from their masters was FREE!!! And it doesn’t get better than free.

106

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont you find it telling that noone has even adressed how taxation is not a form of slavery?

[/quote]

Because to be a slave is to be owned. It is to be property. To pay taxes is to be a member of a society. To pay taxes assumes you have something to pay from…property/wealth. You have that property wealth, ultimately, because of society. There’s not even such a thing as ‘private property’ without the consent of society (or at least the suppression of the non-consenting), as no man created earth, air, or ocean.

107

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont you find it telling that noone has even adressed how taxation is not a form of slavery?

[/quote]

Because to be a slave is to be owned. It is to be property. To pay taxes is to be a member of a society. To pay taxes assumes you have something to pay from…property/wealth. You have that property wealth, ultimately, because of society. There’s not even such a thing as ‘private property’ without the consent of society (or at least the suppression of the non-consenting), as no man created earth, air, or ocean. [/quote]

So people who don’t pay taxes are…?

108

Allow me to defeat the Austrians with their own perverted use of the word, “slavery.” Since none created the raw resources of this earth, no man has any real claim to it. A person who wants to own a mine privately is no more correct than those who want it owned collectively. Each will have to rely on force (or the threat of). We are simply born into the assumption that a single man can own vast resources he didn’t create. We weren’t there to agree to boundries, and to how resources would be used. Since land and resources are sold, traded, and used without the uncoerced consent of everyone, capitalism makes us slaves of others. Oh noes!

109

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont you find it telling that noone has even adressed how taxation is not a form of slavery?

[/quote]

Because to be a slave is to be owned. It is to be property. To pay taxes is to be a member of a society. To pay taxes assumes you have something to pay from…property/wealth. You have that property wealth, ultimately, because of society. There’s not even such a thing as ‘private property’ without the consent of society (or at least the suppression of the non-consenting), as no man created earth, air, or ocean. [/quote]

So people who don’t pay taxes are…?[/quote]

People who don’t pay taxes…

110

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont you find it telling that noone has even adressed how taxation is not a form of slavery?

[/quote]

Because to be a slave is to be owned. It is to be property. To pay taxes is to be a member of a society. To pay taxes assumes you have something to pay from…property/wealth. You have that property wealth, ultimately, because of society. There’s not even such a thing as ‘private property’ without the consent of society (or at least the suppression of the non-consenting), as no man created earth, air, or ocean. [/quote]

Very similar to what it was like in the 19th century most people do not own any real property but live from month to month.

The only realy property they own is their own body and mind with which they have to try to make a living. If property rights depend on the society issuing them, slaves had exactly the legal status assigned to them by society. So if property rights are a matter of consensus and people without any real property should not be taxed, what is the difference again?

Even servitude changed from manual labor to a tithe and then to a sum of money. Not because those serfs were any freer or their status had changed, but because a more sophisticated and specialiced economy made it more convenient. So a form of income tax developed out of servitude that is indistiguishable from todays income tax.

It seems to me that the only real difference is that in one case you belong to a specific person and in teh other to the collective. In that case a lot of things actually make sense, like the war on drugs or the FDA, because we would not want our livestock to harm itself wouldnt we?

111

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Allow me to defeat the Austrians with their own perverted use of the word, “slavery.” Since none created the raw resources of this earth, no man has any real claim to it. A person who wants to own a mine privately is no more correct than those who want it owned collectively. Each will have to rely on force (or the threat of). We are simply born into the assumption that a single man can own vast resources he didn’t create. We weren’t there to agree to boundries, and to how resources would be used. Since land and resources are sold, traded, and used without the uncoerced consent of everyone, capitalism makes us slaves of others. Oh noes![/quote]

Homesteading.

Or in other words, finders keepers.

112

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont you find it telling that noone has even adressed how taxation is not a form of slavery?

[/quote]

Because to be a slave is to be owned. It is to be property. To pay taxes is to be a member of a society. To pay taxes assumes you have something to pay from…property/wealth. You have that property wealth, ultimately, because of society. There’s not even such a thing as ‘private property’ without the consent of society (or at least the suppression of the non-consenting), as no man created earth, air, or ocean. [/quote]

Very similar to what it was like in the 19th century most people do not own any real property but live from month to month.

So if property rights are a matter of consensus[/quote]

Obviously they are. Were you born with a tag attached to you “I have endowed this one with 40 acres and a mule?”

113

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Allow me to defeat the Austrians with their own perverted use of the word, “slavery.” Since none created the raw resources of this earth, no man has any real claim to it. A person who wants to own a mine privately is no more correct than those who want it owned collectively. Each will have to rely on force (or the threat of). We are simply born into the assumption that a single man can own vast resources he didn’t create. We weren’t there to agree to boundries, and to how resources would be used. Since land and resources are sold, traded, and used without the uncoerced consent of everyone, capitalism makes us slaves of others. Oh noes![/quote]

Homesteading.

Or in other words, finders keepers.

[/quote]

That’s not an answer. “I homestead the entire New World! Yeah, this stuff I had no input in creating, I own it all!” No, private (and collective) property is the conclusion of coercive force and the willingingness of society to go along with for however long continue to consent/submit.

114

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

This should be good for a real knockdown, dragout debate about the origins of the Civil War, states’ rights, the right (or lack thereof) to secede and so on.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Its from the NY Times. Of course its going to be for the big money bankers, those who looted the South.

115

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Allow me to defeat the Austrians with their own perverted use of the word, “slavery.” Since none created the raw resources of this earth, no man has any real claim to it. A person who wants to own a mine privately is no more correct than those who want it owned collectively. Each will have to rely on force (or the threat of). We are simply born into the assumption that a single man can own vast resources he didn’t create. We weren’t there to agree to boundries, and to how resources would be used. Since land and resources are sold, traded, and used without the uncoerced consent of everyone, capitalism makes us slaves of others. Oh noes![/quote]

Homesteading.

Or in other words, finders keepers.

[/quote]

That’s not an answer. “I homestead the entire New World! Yeah, this stuff I had no input in creating, I own it all!” No, private (and collective) property is the conclusion of coercive force and the willingingness of society to go along with for however long continue to consent/submit.[/quote]

Ownership by homesteading means one can take possession of property and mix ones labor with it.

Since you cannot put “the entire New World” to use with your labor you cannot own it.

116

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ownership by homesteading means one can take possession of property and mix ones labor with it.

Since you cannot put “the entire New World” to use with your labor you cannot own it.[/quote]

So, now we have a narrowed definition to use. A nonsense definition, but we’ll visit that in a second. Ok, now you need the consent of society and the suppresion of those who won’t consent to how you and others think natural resoures should be allocated. There is no commandment on Mt. Olympus for you to point to and say "See, homesteading-claiming possesion of ‘property’ for which one wishes to labor over-has been decreed by Econimus, God of resource allocation.

Back to why it’s nonsense. How can one take possesion of property, so that they may put labor into it in order to posses it?

117

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ownership by homesteading means one can take possession of property and mix ones labor with it.

Since you cannot put “the entire New World” to use with your labor you cannot own it.[/quote]

So, now we have a narrowed definition to use. A nonsense definition, but we’ll visit that in a second. Ok, now you need the consent of society and the suppresion of those who won’t consent to how you and others think natural resoures should be allocated. There is no commandment on Mt. Olympus for you to point to and say "See, homesteading-claiming possesion of ‘property’ for which one wishes to labor over-has been decreed by Econimus, God of resource allocation.

Back to why it’s nonsense. How can one take possesion of property, so that they may put labor into it in order to posses it? [/quote]

But this is exactly how all civilizations began. People mixed their labor with land and over time, voila, farming, industry, the arts and sciences all came about – and here we are.

Resources can only be economized by the owners who use them. That is what it means to economize.

118

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ownership by homesteading means one can take possession of property and mix ones labor with it.

Since you cannot put “the entire New World” to use with your labor you cannot own it.[/quote]

So, now we have a narrowed definition to use. A nonsense definition, but we’ll visit that in a second. Ok, now you need the consent of society and the suppresion of those who won’t consent to how you and others think natural resoures should be allocated. There is no commandment on Mt. Olympus for you to point to and say "See, homesteading-claiming possesion of ‘property’ for which one wishes to labor over-has been decreed by Econimus, God of resource allocation.

Back to why it’s nonsense. How can one take possesion of property, so that they may put labor into it in order to posses it? [/quote]

But this is exactly how all civilizations began. People mixed their labor with land and over time, voila, farming, industry, the arts and sciences all came about – and here we are.

Resources can only be economized by the owners who use them. That is what it means to economize.[/quote]

This says nothing about who is the owner. An individual behind ‘imaginary’ lines, or a people in a geography bounded by ‘imaginary’ lines.

119

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ownership by homesteading means one can take possession of property and mix ones labor with it.

Since you cannot put “the entire New World” to use with your labor you cannot own it.[/quote]

So, now we have a narrowed definition to use. A nonsense definition, but we’ll visit that in a second. Ok, now you need the consent of society and the suppresion of those who won’t consent to how you and others think natural resoures should be allocated. There is no commandment on Mt. Olympus for you to point to and say "See, homesteading-claiming possesion of ‘property’ for which one wishes to labor over-has been decreed by Econimus, God of resource allocation.

Back to why it’s nonsense. How can one take possesion of property, so that they may put labor into it in order to posses it? [/quote]

But this is exactly how all civilizations began. People mixed their labor with land and over time, voila, farming, industry, the arts and sciences all came about – and here we are.

Resources can only be economized by the owners who use them. That is what it means to economize.[/quote]

By the way, I thought deciding not to act (to do nothing with property) was also ‘human action?’

120

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Allow me to defeat the Austrians with their own perverted use of the word, “slavery.” Since none created the raw resources of this earth, no man has any real claim to it. A person who wants to own a mine privately is no more correct than those who want it owned collectively. Each will have to rely on force (or the threat of). We are simply born into the assumption that a single man can own vast resources he didn’t create. We weren’t there to agree to boundries, and to how resources would be used. Since land and resources are sold, traded, and used without the uncoerced consent of everyone, capitalism makes us slaves of others. Oh noes![/quote]

The raw material may not be created by man, but man gets it out of the ground, man refines it, man shapes it, man gives it value.

The earth never EVER had a naturally occurring mining business. And the mining business is what creates the wealth. not the raw material.