If that’s the case, I guess I should follow Nelson Mandela’s lead and set off bombs until things are changed since that’s the acceptable way to withdraw consent.
If you are held captive by a system, you do not consent because you consumed bread given to you by your captors to stay alive.
I’m surprised you didn’t immigrate to South Africa and try and reinstate apartheid. Seem like more your thing.
When you have enough people lobbing bombs, you win. To the victor goes the spoils.
No one is held captive by our system, and there are very few political systems in the world that do hold citizens captive. The vast majority of our worlds population are free agents.
I don’t think you understand the concept of human agency.
He wouldn’t last ten minutes in Johannesburg.
You are most definitely held captive by the tax system. You are essentially tax live stock for the government
If you really hate taxes, and don’t consent, you get a slick accountant and “move things around” to get out of paying so much.
Or get into a business that collects cash, and throw away some of the receipts.
Or pay workers under the table.
Or make moonshine.
Start a church. Be a charity.
There are tons of awesome ways not to consent to taxation.
Ah, thank you for arguing my point. There is absolutely no way to opt out. It isn’t a real option. I’m not sure exactly how that means taxes are voluntary.
I’m having trouble believing that you guys are serious. Taxes are voluntary? Seriously? Calling taxes non-voluntary makes you crazy? I just have to quit here I guess. I don’t think I can carry on an argument with people who can maintain with a straight face that taxes and participation are in the least bit voluntary.
Warning: To many, this is going to seem weird and deep (but not necessarily in a good way). If that sort of thing doesn’t appeal to you, save yourself some time and eye-rolling, and skip over it.
The taxation is theft argument rests upon several assumptions that have gone unexamined. The first, and most important, is the assumption that the money in your pocket is yours and yours alone–that you have absolute ownership of it. This is a central tenet of libertarianism–that there exists an absolute right (usually called a ‘natural right’ to make it seem more legitimate) to one’s own property. Additionally, there is the assumption that taxation is an artificial, non-absolute construct that gets forcibly imposed upon ‘your’ money.
By these lights, taxing an individual is theft. The problem is, these assumptions do not withstand scrutiny. First, the notion of an absolute right to property is deeply suspect. Consider what we might call the origination problem. Most (all?) of us enjoy the ‘rights’ to property that was obtained via violence way back in the day–the land upon which we live was stolen by our ancestors; our forbears benefited from slave labor; etc. Given this, by what right can we now claim legitimate (which is surely a prerequisite for absolute) ownership?
Now, the libertarian can side-step this by saying he surely has absolute ownership of the product of his labor; ie, his income. Except that, of course, none of us labor in a vacuum–that is, all of us work in a system completely and hopelessly polluted with materials that were either ill-gotten themselves, or (much more likely) purchased with funds that originated in an illegitimate manner. So we’re right back to the origination problem.
In point of fact, wealth (money) is a social construct that derives its meaning and value from the interactions of individuals in society. Rather than being absolute, ownership is a conditional state that emerges from the socioeconomic relationships we enjoy with others and their property. Put another way, ownership is not a relationship just between you and your stuff; it’s a relationship among you, your stuff and the rest of us. Further, we have all agreed–both tacitly and explicitly–to a set of criteria that facilitate the mutually-desired goal of respecting the conditional relationship each of us has with our respective stuff.
At long last, the point. Inherent to this conditional relationship–ie, one of the criteria I referred to above–is a process called taxation. Taxation is not (as the libertarians would have us believe) an artifice imposed upon the absolute relationship between an individual and ‘his’ wealth; rather, taxation is just another intrinsic element of the relationship that exists among all members of society, and the property temporarily in their custody.
Anyway, for those who think that’s a bunch of pretentious hooey, I hear ya. I just thought it might enliven the conversation a little.
Never said that they were voluntary. They are a condition of an entire agreement. One condition. Of An Entire Agreement.
And as has been stated, there are numerous ways out of and around them.
I’m assuming you must have missed the earlier conversation. USMC among others claimed that taxes aren’t theft because participation in the government contract and in paying the tax are consensual. Const requires that the act is voluntary. I called their nonsense and noted that participation and taxation are in fact not voluntary. If you think that participation and taxation cannot be opted out of and are not voluntary, you are reiterating my argument and contradicting those who claimed consent.
How does a 12 year old born in America opt out of paying taxes?
The same way I did.
Whatever guys. Y’all and Harry Ried are right, taxes are voluntary. I mean they will kill you if you resist paying, but you consented to that too.
The max penalty for tax evasion is like 5 years or around $100k. Let’s not get carried away here.
I don’t believe in the Electoral College and I never have; therefore, Hillary Clinton is the real President Elect.
Wow, I never realized how fun this whole “philosophy” thing could be.
In all seriousness, if TheRaj is agreeing with you posts you may want to reconsider your position. Just sayin…
If you resist going to Prison they will eventually shoot and kill you.
“If you resist…” so, you’d be getting shot for resisting arrest not tax evasion then wouldn’t you. Resisting arrest is, wait for it, illegal.
Laws are enforced at the point of a gun. It doesn’t matter what law you resist, they will eventually shoot you if you don’t comply.
The very fact you don’t even agree to this basic idea, I’m convinced you see my name have to try to prove me wrong after getting humiliated badly during the election cycle.
How would you like laws to be enforced? Using a little hope or some such bull shit?
I wasn’t humiliated at all during the election cycle. I was just wrong. Gasp, it happens.
You’ve got serious issues.
Because, wait for it, the people gave the police this authority.
I’m not saying laws shouldn’t be enforced at the point of a gun, I’m just saying we must all acknowledge they are enforced that way.
That’s why DD said they will shoot and kill you if you resist paying your taxes.