Survivalism 101: Taxation is Theft

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Thors Spammer wrote:
Here’s some food for thought: government’s only role in human society is to fill the need for hierarchy. As you seem like a very intelligent person LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, I can assume you believe in evolution. If so, I will assume that you wouldn’t disagree if I said that some form of hierachal need is inherent in humans, since they evolved from (and share common ancestors with) animals that clearly do have hierachal tendancies. Isn’t it fair to say that we can’t really avoid the creation of governments? Sure - it starts as tribes, they turn into societies, which turn into civilizations, etc… I contest that all these things are equivalent to government, as they are all forms of a hierarchy.

Since these things can only form when people interact with one another, the OBVIOUS solution to your qualms would be to make sure that no one ever came in contact with anyone else on, ever. Government is an inevitability LIFTICVSMAXIMVS. So yes you can disagree with it, and you can philosophize about how to things ought to be, but you are spending far too much time toiling in idealism rather than practicality.[/quote]

Actually gov’t don;t just spring up as you say. The way i see it is like this.

Take a large peaceful village of commoners and all goes well. Then raiding parties go after them here and there and other raiding parties offer protection for the exchange of loyalty and goods and or services to their new king or leader. Over time they morph into kings and kingdoms and countries and such. But it all happened because of the use of FORCE.

Now it has been like this for so long that we don’t know any other way of being. I know it;s simplistic but i does capture the essence.

42

[quote]Gregus wrote:

My articulation is that the person doing the “taking”, still with me? Good, has to prove he or the entity has an unalienable “RIGHT” to take MY property. Your logic is ass backward. [/quote]

No, they don’t - the person doing the “taking” doesn’t have to prove anything, they just need to be able to take it from you because they are bigger/stronger/smarter.

If a person “taking” it from you has to prove they have a right to it, the presumption is you already do, which to presume you indeed have a property “right” in question, and they merely have to overcome that presumption.

My point - you still with me? - is that you haven’t established that you have the property right as an initial matter, which you still haven’t.

No, they don’t, because you are starting with the assumption that you have the right to the property as an initial matter. Problem out of the gate is that you haven’t established why you have the property right as an initial matter so someone wanting to take it would need to prove it is really theirs.

I sense I have wasted my time on someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Oh well, live and learn.

Good Lord.

43

[quote]Thors Spammer wrote:
Alpha F wrote:

You are completely ignoring whose role government is really filling in for and who/what sits at the top of that pyramid.

Why don’t you just explain your perfect solution for me then?
[/quote]

Because I am not intelligent enough to believe in evolution.
Your evolved brain should be able to retrieve historical information better than my created mind.

; )

On the Taxation is Theft who has asked for bulls, goats, “goods”, tithes, money for the “service” of guidance, repentance, forgiveness of sins…

May the government forgive me for my sin of sloth in that I can’t be bothered enough and chose to elect them to organize my street, my town, my country for me.

From a different perspective:

Is taxation theft if we are choosing to pay somebody else to do the work we can’t be bothered to do?

I agree with you that government is about hierarchy as I said in my post above that the order government ensures in hierarchy. I agree Anarchy is highly idealist and even utopia. The reality however, is that politics replaces religion - always have.

Whether you believe in creation or evolution you cannot ignore the role of religion and the power of the church and all the spiritual traditions. Have you not heard that the head of the king is God and that the church is the head of the state? Even tribes men had/have spiritual “chiefs” who were/are ultimately consulted before the leader of any tribe or society makes decisions.

The Law is Bible based. So are the laws of hygiene - the Israelites, yes the jews, had the most advanced laws on hygiene of their time.

Priests may not overtly rule anymore but look at your current elected leader, is he not the chosen Messiah to save America and sit it in Mount Zion as the New Jerusalem?

The theme is the same, only the players and the act are different.

44

What is not being seen though is that society cannot function in general in an absence of peace – where chaos is the norm. Yes, there are individuals who are not by nature “peaceful” but society could not function if this were normal behavior. In fact, we have a word to describe this behavior as “anti-social” because it is counter intuitive to the functioning of society.

That is all there is to it.

Peace is a requirement for government to work because the exact opposite of that is total chaos in which government cannot have control anyway.

Power in and of it self would not sufficient enough to maintain power in a world of anti-social behavior.

45

That is such a black and white argument. What you are saying is that there is either total peace, or total chaos.

And by what terms do you define anti-social behavior. Since government is a social construct, and anarchy is rejection of government, isn’t anarchy anti-social, thereby making is not peaceful but rather chaotic?

46

[quote]Thors Spammer wrote:
What you are saying is that there is either total peace, or total chaos.

And by what terms do you define anti-social behavior. Since government is a social construct, and anarchy is rejection of government, isn’t anarchy anti-social, thereby making is not peaceful but rather chaotic?[/quote]

No, anarchism is not chaos or anti-social. Anti-social behavior is theft, murder, destruction, war – anything that interrupts the free exchange of property. By this notion government is anti-social. Anarchism just describes the normal state of human existence when there is no coercive authority impeding social structures.

And I am not saying there is either total peace or total chaos, I am saying that those are the extremes where the points I am trying to make are best illustrated.

In a society of total peace government has the best chances of thriving and growing more massive whereas in total chaos it has the best chance of being overthrown; however only relative peace (as apposed to total peace) is a necessity for bringing about working government. Typically, it is a specific government that causes the chaos that brings about its own destruction.

47

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gregus wrote:

My articulation is that the person doing the “taking”, still with me? Good, has to prove he or the entity has an unalienable “RIGHT” to take MY property. Your logic is ass backward.

No, they don’t - the person doing the “taking” doesn’t have to prove anything, they just need to be able to take it from you because they are bigger/stronger/smarter.

If a person “taking” it from you has to prove they have a right to it, the presumption is you already do, which to presume you indeed have a property “right” in question, and they merely have to overcome that presumption.

My point - you still with me? - is that you haven’t established that you have the property right as an initial matter, which you still haven’t.

Seriously your argument is ass backward. The person doing the taking has to justify how they have the right, not the other way around. What planet are you from, you friggin moron.

No, they don’t, because you are starting with the assumption that you have the right to the property as an initial matter. Problem out of the gate is that you haven’t established why you have the property right as an initial matter so someone wanting to take it would need to prove it is really theirs.

I sense I have wasted my time on someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Oh well, live and learn.

And filing 0’s means you didn’t take a paycheck. Nothing to do with hiding. Again you will spend your life working for other people so i do feel sorry for you.

Good Lord.[/quote]

Well if the whole time your logical basis for the argument is the “Might Makes Right” then you’re right. I was philosophizing on the basis of everyone standing on an equal plane. But the plane is not equal and “Might does make Right”.

Basically it’s a form of forced payment whether you want to or not. Either way, it’s wrong.

48

Might protects right.

49

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Might protects right.[/quote]

The day every American had to write a weekly check for their taxes, instead of the automatic withdrawal, there would be problems very quickly. The FED LOVES automatic deduction.

50

[quote]Gregus wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gregus wrote:

My articulation is that the person doing the “taking”, still with me? Good, has to prove he or the entity has an unalienable “RIGHT” to take MY property. Your logic is ass backward.

No, they don’t - the person doing the “taking” doesn’t have to prove anything, they just need to be able to take it from you because they are bigger/stronger/smarter.

If a person “taking” it from you has to prove they have a right to it, the presumption is you already do, which to presume you indeed have a property “right” in question, and they merely have to overcome that presumption.

My point - you still with me? - is that you haven’t established that you have the property right as an initial matter, which you still haven’t.

Seriously your argument is ass backward. The person doing the taking has to justify how they have the right, not the other way around. What planet are you from, you friggin moron.

No, they don’t, because you are starting with the assumption that you have the right to the property as an initial matter. Problem out of the gate is that you haven’t established why you have the property right as an initial matter so someone wanting to take it would need to prove it is really theirs.

I sense I have wasted my time on someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Oh well, live and learn.

And filing 0’s means you didn’t take a paycheck. Nothing to do with hiding. Again you will spend your life working for other people so i do feel sorry for you.

Good Lord.

Well if the whole time your logical basis for the argument is the “Might Makes Right” then you’re right. I was philosophizing on the basis of everyone standing on an equal plane. But the plane is not equal and “Might does make Right”.

Basically it’s a form of forced payment whether you want to or not. Either way, it’s wrong. [/quote]

That is not what he is saying as far as I understand it.

The problem is that you cannot reason for any kind of ethical system with any finality.

So if you say you have the right to private property you think that other people have to acknowledge that.

They don´t.

There are people out there who think that private property is a perversion.

Now, on a practical level such people do not build much of a society when they come into power, but in a democracy they can vote according to their opinions and why not? Since they will not tend to make too much money anyway and since they have only one tiny vote which makes it unlikely that they will ever suffer directly from their lack of respect for other peoples property they can easily vote ahead.

Ultimately they always fail of course, but not because it is unethical what they do but because it is impractical, which is kind of worse in the real world.

51

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Therizza wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Therizza wrote:
what did you think about that piece by Marx?

I had started to dig into Marx, just out of curiosity. I have to say that I am very dissapointed so far. I wanted to read a bit about him before picking up Das Kapital. I just got done with a book that I thought would be a fluff piece on him, Marx’s Das Kapital by some dude that is supposed to be one of his beter biographers.

The guy was essentially a bum that didn’t work very often. He owed money all over town, took 20 years to write a book that he didn’t even finish, and lied continually about its progress.

The fact that most of Das Kapital was put together from his archaic notes by a friend of his after he died, does not have me anxious to read it any longer.

His economics and philosophy are extremly shallow. I really was expecting more, but now I am left wondering what all the fuss was about.

The Communist Manifesto was a good read. Kinda silly in hindsight that it took off in Russia, which had no industrial base. I truly believe a real Marxian state could have emerged, and been successful in Germany had they not lost WWI.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll take a peek at that one. I thought Marx’s whole premis was that industrialization was the key to successful communism. Rise of the working class and all. China did the same as Russia, with the same results. [/quote]

Industrialization was the key, more because of the close proximity of the workers and the nature of factories more than anything else. The divide between the rich and poor would also be greatest in the cities.

Russia actually did a remarkable job of industrializing after the communist revolution. Kind of like putting the cart before the horse, but had they not turned communism into a totalitarian murdering regime, it probably would have been highly regarded for bringing Russia into the forefront of the world even though their history was filled with basically losing wars and starving while under the rule of other countries.

52

“Taxation as theft” is funny. I guess it’s a good way to look at things as long as you don’t like cops on the streets, sewers, clean running water, fire departments, paved streets, traffic lights, highways, public schools, and a slew of other shit.

Fuckin loons.

53

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Taxation as theft” is funny. I guess it’s a good way to look at things as long as you don’t like cops on the streets, sewers, clean running water, fire departments, paved streets, traffic lights, highways, public schools, and a slew of other shit.

Fuckin loons.[/quote]

Can we not have those things without having our property forcefully taken from us? I agree with you about the “slew of shit” we get from government whether we want it or not.

If you keep looking at taxation as a right of the government then all you will ever do is empower government to keep stealing from you and growing ever more large while doing it. Government is untenable with natural rights.

I’d rather be a “fucking loon” than a misanthropic, statist, robot awaiting orders from my “beloved government leaders”. Only people who lack individuality need government.

54

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Taxation as theft” is funny. I guess it’s a good way to look at things as long as you don’t like cops on the streets, sewers, clean running water, fire departments, paved streets, traffic lights, highways, public schools, and a slew of other shit.

Fuckin loons.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how little that stuff all costs in comparison to what we pay in taxes every year? The MAJORITY of taxes do not go to making the every day lives of regular US citizens comfortable. Also I would be way more happy about paying a higher local tax, where the money was going into such things, things that I could touch and feel, as opposed to federal taxes which is by all accounts, just vanishing into thin air from my perspective.

V

55

[quote]Vegita wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Taxation as theft” is funny. I guess it’s a good way to look at things as long as you don’t like cops on the streets, sewers, clean running water, fire departments, paved streets, traffic lights, highways, public schools, and a slew of other shit.

Fuckin loons.

Do you have any idea how little that stuff all costs in comparison to what we pay in taxes every year? The MAJORITY of taxes do not go to making the every day lives of regular US citizens comfortable. Also I would be way more happy about paying a higher local tax, where the money was going into such things, things that I could touch and feel, as opposed to federal taxes which is by all accounts, just vanishing into thin air from my perspective.

V[/quote]

I know what the stuff goes to, believe me. A quarter of every dollar goes to the municipalities and a quarter goes to the state, with the other .50 going to the Federal government. And municipalities scramble constantly for the plethora of grants that come down from the Federal government, as do the states. The money doesn’t dissapear… there’s too many people that claim this that have never even attended a town council meeting and have no conception of where their tax money actually goes. It’s a necessary evil… and that’s coming from someone who lives in arguably the most corrupt state in the country.

I’m not saying that all tax spending is justified, but often the same people who want no taxes are the same ones who want military spending to equal that of the old Soviet Union. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.

56

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Taxation as theft” is funny. I guess it’s a good way to look at things as long as you don’t like cops on the streets, sewers, clean running water, fire departments, paved streets, traffic lights, highways, public schools, and a slew of other shit.

Fuckin loons.

Do you have any idea how little that stuff all costs in comparison to what we pay in taxes every year? The MAJORITY of taxes do not go to making the every day lives of regular US citizens comfortable. Also I would be way more happy about paying a higher local tax, where the money was going into such things, things that I could touch and feel, as opposed to federal taxes which is by all accounts, just vanishing into thin air from my perspective.

V

I know what the stuff goes to, believe me. A quarter of every dollar goes to the municipalities and a quarter goes to the state, with the other .50 going to the Federal government. And municipalities scramble constantly for the plethora of grants that come down from the Federal government, as do the states. The money doesn’t dissapear… there’s too many people that claim this that have never even attended a town council meeting and have no conception of where their tax money actually goes. It’s a necessary evil… and that’s coming from someone who lives in arguably the most corrupt state in the country.

I’m not saying that all tax spending is justified, but often the same people who want no taxes are the same ones who want military spending to equal that of the old Soviet Union. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.

[/quote]

I’m not as hard core as lifty or orion, at least I don’t think I am. I would be happy with far less federal taxes, some less state taxes and either the same or higher local taxes. And BTW, I go to town board meeting all year long, I read many town budgets, I write municipal insurance, I know the cost of running some 25 towns in my region so I have a handle on exactly how much taxes it costs to run a town or village. My county is in the top 5 for taxes in the united states, I pay a lot of taxes.

V

57

[quote]Vegita wrote:

I’m not as hard core as lifty or orion, at least I don’t think I am. I would be happy with far less federal taxes, some less state taxes and either the same or higher local taxes. And BTW, I go to town board meeting all year long, I read many town budgets, I write municipal insurance, I know the cost of running some 25 towns in my region so I have a handle on exactly how much taxes it costs to run a town or village. My county is in the top 5 for taxes in the united states, I pay a lot of taxes.

V[/quote]

I absolutely agree.

I am all for Home Rule- but Home Rule by the municipality, not the state. The State of NJ horsefucks local government at every turn with ridiculous mandates that cost a shitload of money, yet the state doesn’t provide funding. Then, when municipalities start going broke, they start telling them to combine.

Good luck with that- some of these towns have been around since 1790. They’re not keen on joining up with the neighbors, to say the least.

That’s why I laugh when people complain about the Federal Gov’t- they’re really not even comparable in how they fuck you over compared with state government. The states are the worst… hence why anyone who wants “state’s rights” is, in my eyes, a retard.

58

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Vegita wrote:

I’m not as hard core as lifty or orion, at least I don’t think I am. I would be happy with far less federal taxes, some less state taxes and either the same or higher local taxes. And BTW, I go to town board meeting all year long, I read many town budgets, I write municipal insurance, I know the cost of running some 25 towns in my region so I have a handle on exactly how much taxes it costs to run a town or village. My county is in the top 5 for taxes in the united states, I pay a lot of taxes.

V

I absolutely agree.

I am all for Home Rule- but Home Rule by the municipality, not the state. The State of NJ horsefucks local government at every turn with ridiculous mandates that cost a shitload of money, yet the state doesn’t provide funding. Then, when municipalities start going broke, they start telling them to combine.

Good luck with that- some of these towns have been around since 1790. They’re not keen on joining up with the neighbors, to say the least.

That’s why I laugh when people complain about the Federal Gov’t- they’re really not even comparable in how they fuck you over compared with state government. The states are the worst… hence why anyone who wants “state’s rights” is, in my eyes, a retard.[/quote]

I think what it boils down to is having the people in power be as close to the people who elected them as possible. So at least my state representative has to live in my county, if our state government shits the bed (which it has continually don’t get me wrong) at least I can drive to the motherfuckers office and speak to him directly about what he fucked up. Try getting a meeting with your senator.

And at the town level it’s even better, For instance, in my current town, the past three town supervisors have been, my frinds dad, a kid I went to school withs dad, and a kid I went to school withs grandmother. You have a problem with something in your town and you can just go up and talk to someone. The supervisors don’t want pissed off people so they will generally do the right thing if they are able.

V

{edited for} Oh yea and btw, your state does suck some hard balls. NY and NJ can go fuck themselves.

59

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Therizza wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Therizza wrote:
what did you think about that piece by Marx?

I had started to dig into Marx, just out of curiosity. I have to say that I am very dissapointed so far. I wanted to read a bit about him before picking up Das Kapital. I just got done with a book that I thought would be a fluff piece on him, Marx’s Das Kapital by some dude that is supposed to be one of his beter biographers.

The guy was essentially a bum that didn’t work very often. He owed money all over town, took 20 years to write a book that he didn’t even finish, and lied continually about its progress.

The fact that most of Das Kapital was put together from his archaic notes by a friend of his after he died, does not have me anxious to read it any longer.

His economics and philosophy are extremly shallow. I really was expecting more, but now I am left wondering what all the fuss was about.

The Communist Manifesto was a good read. Kinda silly in hindsight that it took off in Russia, which had no industrial base. I truly believe a real Marxian state could have emerged, and been successful in Germany had they not lost WWI.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll take a peek at that one. I thought Marx’s whole premis was that industrialization was the key to successful communism. Rise of the working class and all. China did the same as Russia, with the same results.

Industrialization was the key, more because of the close proximity of the workers and the nature of factories more than anything else. The divide between the rich and poor would also be greatest in the cities.

Russia actually did a remarkable job of industrializing after the communist revolution. Kind of like putting the cart before the horse, but had they not turned communism into a totalitarian murdering regime, it probably would have been highly regarded for bringing Russia into the forefront of the world even though their history was filled with basically losing wars and starving while under the rule of other countries. [/quote]

From what I have read of Marx it is my impression that industrialization was a prerequisite for Marxism. Russia and China missed that part.

60

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Taxation as theft” is funny. I guess it’s a good way to look at things as long as you don’t like cops on the streets, sewers, clean running water, fire departments, paved streets, traffic lights, highways, public schools, and a slew of other shit.

Fuckin loons.[/quote]

All of those things have been funded with volentary funding. You should read Ben Franklin’s Autobiographry. Very interesting.

There are other ways to collect taxes volentarily or from people that actually use these things. Local taxes should fund most of this anyway. Why is my federal rate over 35% and my state only 8%? Why should the federal gov’t collect as much as they do only to dole it back out to states and individuals?