Katie and Jennifer

[billc]

There is a great, short book on this by Frederic Bastiat called "The Law," where he discusses this very issue. He wrote "The Law," in 1848 and if you want to look at the different aspects of this debate he breaks them all down. The book is only .99 on Kindle.

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323470300&sr=1-1

Propery and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid Pain--and since labor is pain in itself--it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work...When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder. But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh for crying out loud....it's not theft because a theft is an unlawful taking. Do we really need to dive to this level of sophistry?

I sure would love to see the viable government that doesn't impose taxes. Really, I would. While we're in fantasy land, I'd also like my student loans forgiven and a date with Scarlet Johansson and Jessica Alba--at the same time.

Oh hey, while we're at it, is every cop who arrests someone guilty of abduction? No? Well why not pray tell?

"it's not theft because a theft is an unlawful taking."

The only reason taxes aren't theft is because someone passed a law saying so?
So. If someone passed a law making rape legal, it would be ok then right?

"is every cop who arrests someone guilty of abduction?"

Yes.
It's only legal because someone passed a law saying so.
There's also the term 'unlawful detainment'. Cops get hit with it occasionally when they exceed their powers.


Why do I have to wear a seat belt but a cop doesn't?
Someone wrote a law that says I have to but he doesn't.

Why can't I talk on my cell phone and drive, but a cop can?
Because someone wrote a law that says I can't but he can.



Let me try a different tact.
Is pizza a vegetable?
It is according to the US Government.
Ketchups a beverage, and tomatoes are vegetables too.
According to laws passed.

Must make them so, despite all the evidence that says otherwise.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

There's also the term 'unlawful detainment'. Cops get hit with it occasionally when they exceed their powers.

Indeed, and it's unlawful because the cop exceeded their power when commiting it. If they remain within the bounds of their authority, an arrest is entirely lawful and the cop's done nothing wrong. Similarly, a taxman collecting the dues established by the legislature isn't committing theft...unless, of course, he attempts to pocket some of it for himself, or demand more than the tax scheme requires.

You still haven't answered me: if all taxes are wrongful theft, how the hell is any government supposed to fund itself? Voluntary donations?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You still haven't answered me: if all taxes are wrongful theft, how the hell is any government supposed to fund itself? Voluntary donations?

Service fees. Tolls. Usage fees. There are ways so that those who use government services pay and those who don't, don't.

It would result in about 75% decrease in the size of government, as government would be forces to run lean-n-mean, actively fight chronyism and fraud, and function efficiently. No more $900 hammers. Senators would work for free, part time, holding real jobs and do true public service.

It's a fantasy, I know, much like finding an honest politician, or gold at the end of the rainbow.

At the Federal level - eliminate all things not specifically authorized by the US Constitution.
Good bye Medicare, Medicaid, Departments of energy, education, and so forth. Goodbye DHS, TSA, DEA, HUD, SSI, FICA, etc etc.

In fact, let it run on donations...see how much people -really- want in the government.

Extremist, I know, but there's a point in there for those who look.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Wow.....okay I guess we're done on this conversation topic.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Service fees. Tolls. Usage fees. There are ways so that those who use government services pay and those who don't, don't.

It would result in about 75% decrease in the size of government, as government would be forces to run lean-n-mean, actively fight chronyism and fraud, and function efficiently. No more $900 hammers. Senators would work for free, part time, holding real jobs and do true public service.

It's a fantasy, I know, much like finding an honest politician, or gold at the end of the rainbow.

At the Federal level - eliminate all things not specifically authorized by the US Constitution.
Good bye Medicare, Medicaid, Departments of energy, education, and so forth. Goodbye DHS, TSA, DEA, HUD, SSI, FICA, etc etc.

In fact, let it run on donations...see how much people -really- want in the government.

Extremist, I know, but there's a point in there for those who look.

Oh there'd still be those hammers. That was a specific hammer that had justification for its existence and justified its cost (look it up). But the important difference is that it would be in the private sector. I think space exploration in private hands would get us there quicker and more efficiently, anyway.

However, there is one sticking point on our argument, Bill. Whenever we look at adding a new service, there would be startup capital required. I'm assuming new services would only be added when we have the coffers full enough to pull that off?

Also, how would military matters be funded?

 

[Josh Oakley]

Wow.....okay I guess we're done on this conversation topic.

Or you could meet the specific claims with counter claims or point out problems with his claims. Just sayin.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Or you could meet the specific claims with counter claims or point out problems with his claims. Just sayin.

"Justice and government to those that can afford it" is not a concept I wish to contend with. There's a certain point where disagreement is so absolute that discussion is futile. Feel free if you wish to, however.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh there'd still be those hammers. That was a specific hammer that had justification for its existence and justified its cost (look it up). But the important difference is that it would be in the private sector. I think space exploration in private hands would get us there quicker and more efficiently, anyway.

However, there is one sticking point on our argument, Bill. Whenever we look at adding a new service, there would be startup capital required. I'm assuming new services would only be added when we have the coffers full enough to pull that off?

Also, how would military matters be funded?

I still remember that wonderful song lyric "For what they spend on a 5c nail, you could send you kid to Yale....Wrench. For. Sale."

The military can hold some bake sales, maybe sell cookies. Get the parents to go door to door with sales kits.
"If you buy now, Johnny gets a shiny new F22 to fly."

Actually, if I recall correctly, the military isn't supposed to be permanent and requires re approval every so often since a standing army isn't in the USC.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Justice and government to those that can afford it" is not a concept I wish to contend with. There's a certain point where disagreement is so absolute that discussion is futile. Feel free if you wish to, however.

I fear you continue to miss my point. Let me attempt a final time to clarify.

I said taxes are theft.
Legalized theft.
Legalized because the government wrote a permission slip to allow it to do so and call it something else.

This is the same reason why you must wear a seat belt, can't talk on your phone while driving, and must stop at red lights while a guy wearing a police uniform in a car with certain markings can do all 3.
Someone wrote a law saying it was ok for them to do, but not for you.


Under our current situation, I am mandated to turn over a certain percentage of my wealth to the state, for them to do as they wish with it.
I have no real choice. I do it, or -else-.
I have no real say. My desire to change things is trumped by the myth of "common good".
My insistence that the system do something about the fraud, waste, corruption and mismanagement is ignored as being 'too hard', 'too costly', or 'more trouble than it's worth'.

I don't honestly think the government should hold bake sales or depend on charity.
Because I don't think they are smart enough to run a bake sale without ****ing it up for one.....and few if anyone would actually give them any money if they didn't have a gun to their head.

If you disagree with the last point, all I have to ask is, how much -extra- did you send in last year? If the answer is 0, why didn't you contribute more?

If the government didn't steal some portion of our earnings for their own use, they would have to turn to other means.
Tariffs and tolls to name 2.
2 methods which worked well for the first 100+ years of our nations history I might add, and the main cause for Lincolns illegal war against the legally seceded South as his cry of "who will collect the tariffs!" showed. (He just wanted the money from the Southern ports.)

Art museums need government money. Without it, they close up. Why? Because most people don't care.
The government must steal some of your income to pay unemployment/retirement to others. Why? Because most people wouldn't put a dime on the side if they had a choice.
The government must demand everyone chip in for the schools. Why? Because if they didn't, half the population wouldn't be able to afford to goto school because the costs would be beyond them.

Just because I call taxation what it is, doesn't mean I think that actual full-tilt anarchy is the answer. I fully recognize the need for some limited amount of gun-to-the-head action for the real good of the people.

It's the BS bloat that I disagree with, the waste, which if it was eliminated would mean that I could keep more of what I earned for one, and that the money that was stolen from me would actually be efficiently used for the real good of others.

Does that clear up the disconnect?

 

[Makalakumu]

Who is holding the gun to whose head? That is the fundamental question in politics and its completely immoral. Who controls the gun?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Does that clear up the disconnect?

To a certian extent, but I still believe that you're deliberately ignoring the role that voting and representation actually play in the legitimacy of taxation. You may not like taxes going toward welfare, and I may not like taxes going toward the Iraq war, but we each still have a say (albeit indirect and only significant if part of a greater movement) in how those taxes get collected and spent. To me, that makes all the difference between begrudgingly paying Uncle Sam and handing over money at the barrel of a gun; you seem to think they're synonymous.

Ironically enough, what you've pointed out about donations is exactly why the whole "Well Warren Buffet can pay more" claptrap is meaningless...taxation only works if its compulsory.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If I don't pay, eventually men with guns come to take me away.
In the old days, if you didn't pay Bruno, men with bats came for your knee caps.
The difference is that men with guns who were voted into power said the first one is ok, but not the second.

To me, it's like arguing over the e in tomatoe.

 

[Makalakumu]

To a certian extent, but I still believe that you're deliberately ignoring the role that voting and representation actually play in the legitimacy of taxation. You may not like taxes going toward welfare, and I may not like taxes going toward the Iraq war, but we each still have a say (albeit indirect and only significant if part of a greater movement) in how those taxes get collected and spent. To me, that makes all the difference between begrudgingly paying Uncle Sam and handing over money at the barrel of a gun; you seem to think they're synonymous.

Back in the day, when I considered myself liberal, I considered it my duty to pay taxes because I lived in this society and reaped it's benefits. After 9/11, my views began to change on politics, partly because I began to learn things that were not taught in the public schools or state colleges, and partly because the government that I was supporting had intensified a global campaign of death and destruction as well as clamping down on civil rights at home. Eventually, I got to the point where I decided that I didn't want to voluntarily pay for this anymore, because my "consent" was a tacit agreement with an innumerable amount of completely immoral policies. This is the first time the Libertarian argument about taxation really hit home. There is no consent, no matter how much you agree with a policy, no matter how much you might benefit from it.

There is only a gun in the room and all power flows out of that gun.

Once I had this epiphany, I started to see politics from a different perspective. I noticed that when political power was backed with implicit violence, the struggle of special interests groups, suddenly made more sense. Essentially, we had one group of people struggling to control the gun in the room and turn in on another, so that the implicit violence of the State would, at the very least, not harm them, and even better, aid them. This corrupting influence bled its way into things that I thought I supported, things like public education and universal health care. For example, I saw that whenever a new mandate was passed, there was always some special interest group that was going to benefit from it and as long as you were in that special interest group, it was good, but if you weren't in that special interest group...

Eventually, the recognizance of the inherit violence of the system helped me make sense of that fact that so many sociopaths had entered politics in search of power. What kind of people are going to reach for the promise of implicit violence to force people to do what they want? How do psychopaths seize the reins of power in a society and destroy it from within? Why do the members of certain societies actually support psychopaths in power as they destroy society with government power? Imagine there is a gun on the table and all one needs to do to grab it, is get organized and motivated. The strongest, most cunning, and unscrupulous will eventually grab that gun and make it do it's bidding.

Let this perspective percolate through your view of history and see what you think. Think about current events in the US and see if you can see this pattern. It all goes back to force. Taxation is theft and the system is backed by implicit violence. If you want to fight over the gun in the room, eventually someone bigger, meaner, stronger and smarter is going to take it from you.

 

[TwentyThree]

To a certian extent, but I still believe that you're deliberately ignoring the role that voting and representation actually play in the legitimacy of taxation. You may not like taxes going toward welfare, and I may not like taxes going toward the Iraq war, but we each still have a say (albeit indirect and only significant if part of a greater movement) in how those taxes get collected and spent. To me, that makes all the difference between begrudgingly paying Uncle Sam and handing over money at the barrel of a gun; you seem to think they're synonymous.

Ironically enough, what you've pointed out about donations is exactly why the whole "Well Warren Buffet can pay more" claptrap is meaningless...taxation only works if its compulsory.

You've stated repeatedly that we somehow got to "vote" on all of this (never mind I never got to vote on, oh, whether or not Social Security should exist, or for that matter, an income tax...)

I have, repeatedly, voted against taxation, voted for candidates (when I was allowed to - ballot access for minority candidates in this country is a joke) that shared my viewpoint, and my candidates lost, repeatedly (on rare occasion the people were smart enough to avoid taxing us all for the benefit of a special minority, which is usually the case).

Does my act of voting AGAINST such things make me exempt, then? If not, why not?

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's another thing to consider that I think counters the idea that voting legitimizes taxation. When the government goes into debt, the unborn are literally being taxed for today's policies. Therefore, I'm paying for wars like Vietnam and my children will be paying for the wars we're having right now. None of us were given a chance to vote on it. It's theft.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Ok, I'm clearly unenlightened then. We're all sheep, governments out to get us, tinfoil hats please.

Really, I got it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Really, I got it.

Nope, they got you and they got your money and they are killing people with it and you can't stop it. When you try to stop it and live with some integrity, then you'll discover the nature of taxation.