Not sure why you are interjecting being a hypocrite here.
Whether one agrees or not, they are still compelled by the collective will. If one does not wish to abide, then what choice is available other than living within the rules (although rebelling internally), being punished or otherwise compelled, or escaping into an isolated area ‘outside’ of the ruled area?
Am l missing something in your questioning?
It just doesn’t seem like the “well then go live by yourself on a mountain” standard gets applied very evenly. I guess you made a true statement, but it’s true about a million other things too that never get brought up in the same sort of way.
My perspective is that every US citizen has given their consent to being taxed in some form or fashion.
First and foremost, I believe the U.S. government, each state government, and any local government is the people. I do not believe it is a separate entity as many do. That’s an important distinction for me, which should become clear as this post goes on.
The people, via the government, have agreed, ie consented, to taxation in order to pay for agreed upon common causes. Where the argument is, IMO, and where you and I probably find more common than uncommon ground is what the government should be spending money on. That; however, is a separate issue, IMO.
As for consent, every US citizen gives their consent either implicitly or explicitly. For the vast majority of us, consent is implicit by virtue of our birthright citizenship.
“But USMC, I didn’t choose to be born here.”
No, but:
a) Your parents made that choice for you at a time when you could not.
b) At some point in time, you assumed control of your life (you were no longer a dependent of anyone else) and made the decision, whether it be conscious or not, to stay within the United States and by extension her governance.
“But USMC, my parents were born here too.”
That is true for many, but at some point either:
a) You ancestors immigrated here (more on that later) or,
b) They were a part of the free elections of the representatives that wrote and signed taxation law into effect. In other words, they consented to the rule of law of the United States one of which is taxation.
Immigrants, on the other hand, explicitly consent to US tax law by virtue of freely choosing to enter the United States.
Tl;dr,
US Citizens develop and agree to be governed by the rule of law establish by freely elected representation as outlined in the US Constitution. By virtue of birth or choice every American consent’s, either implicitly or explicitly, to US rule of law and; therefore, taxation.
You have a choice. Pay your taxes under US law or move to a country that does not tax. I hear Bermuda is nice this time of the year.
If this is your idea of consent, how are you not in prison for confusing rape with consensual sex?
Personally, I agree with you. But the anarchist’s rebuttal to this was developed in the 19th century by Lysander Spooner, who argued that the notion of a ‘social contract’ was bogus, because the govt will force you into the contract against your will.
Of course, Spooner also argued that the Constitution legally applied only to those who were alive when it was signed, so…
That’s quit the definition of consent. By your definition it is basically impossible not to consent, short of suicide. You’ve just made consent have no meaning because non-consent is impossible. Your lack of killing yourself will be taken as consent. Literally, nowhere else would anything like this argument ever be considered consent. I’m going to shoot a gun at you, and if you don’t get out of the way, I’m going to consider that consent. You live in the inner city and you consented to being robbed because you didn’t move somewhere else, so it wasn’t theft.
Further, most of what is taken is not for things that are agreed upon and there is not a single thing all tax payers agree on. There is absolutely no consensus of the role of spending.
What kind of fucking retard comment is this?
Not at all.
You can leave.
You can vote for and push others to vote for representation that enacts laws you want.
You’ve already consented to not murder others…
Nope because theft is against the law and you’ve consent to live under said law.
Let me ask you this @DoubleDuce, are those that say Trump isn’t my President right or are they wrong? Why?
Oh please. You can get out of the way of my bullet.
Nonsense. If a person doesn’t believe in a government, you can’t come at him with a scenario that forces him to break those beliefs in the first place.
I do not, because I disagree with what many people call murder. I support people’s right to kill in ways many in the US do not. And you didn’t address the points.
Again, your counter is to assume the other persons argument invalid as an axiom. The consent in both those cases is what is in question. You just assumed you were right as your argument.
Do these same people hold to the sanctity of the US government and constitution?
If it has been their lifelong conviction that they do not endorse the government then they have a case. If they just don’t like the outcome of this particular presidential election, then they don’t.
That’s nuts as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t have to get our of the way of your bullet because nowhere have I agreed, implicit or explicitly, tp be shot at. You have agreed to live under US law, implicitly, and murder, attempted murder, willful endangerment, etc… is against it.
Okay, well I guess that’s where we part ways and why I prefaced my comment.
Okay… Murder is a legal construct so it’s what the law says it is…
I’m not really sure what you want the address?
Nowhere do you consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to someone else murdering you or robbing you. I’ve already demonstrated how it is your choice to live under US law and thus you’ve consented to it. If fact, you’ve consented to not rob and murder people.
Okay, well, I think we should just stop here…
Well her mom and dad consented that I could fuck her, so who gives a shit what she thinks? Get the Duct tape! - @anon50325502
You’re about the most retarded person I’ve ever encountered.
If she didn’t want to have sex with me she should’ve just left the country when she turned 18. Otherwise she consents to fuck me - @anon50325502
The jokes write themselves!
But you are contending that not getting out of the way is implicit consent. Are you now saying it isn’t?
we don’t part ways, because I don’t disavow government. I’m merely point out that you are refusing to acknowledge the other side. You keep assuming the other side is wrong as your counter argument. If you are going to debate the argument, you can’t assume you’re right, that isn’t debate.
Great and the authority of the legal construct is what is in question so cannot just assume it.
Right, but not getting out of the way is consent in this case, but you claimed it wasn’t earlier.
I’m only acknowledging my lack of argument against people that hold that belief. I’ll take it that you also lack an argument against them.
It isn’t theft because it isn’t being taken from you without your consent.
Okay, how did theraj consent to taxes?
He lives in a representative democracy, right?
Okay, what would he have to do (or have done) to not consent?