greatest police badge number ever

[guerilla]

Sure it is. You can relocate to another country with lower rates, you can simply stop paying like Wesley Snipes, or you can flee to the uninhabitable wastelands of SA like you did. Choices abound.

First, I did not go to SA.

Second, not everyone can relocate. The US taxes you when you leave, and claims your future income in other countries.

Third, people don't choose not paying because there is jailtime tied to it.

You're making my point here.

Nobody can ever prove why people pay taxes, because nobody can read minds. Their reasons are their own and always will be.

We don't have to read minds to analyze their behavior. People rationalize stuff (as I explained early in this thread) to match the choices they think they have.

The truth is, people don't voluntarily pay taxes because they are not given that choice.

There is violence attached to tax payment, forced confiscation of property and jailtime. Now if you want to argue that those penalties don't enforce any compliance then you may as well argue for a voluntary tax system.

But that didn't stop you from positing your own assertion on why they pay them with absolutely zero proof

It wasn't with absolutely zero proof. People do not have a choice not to pay. They are coerced with violence. Again, economics. Learn it.

But you can't admit that you can't prove that citizens are secretly thirsting for anarchy, because it is the very bedrock of your deeply personal crusade.

First, there is no such thing as a citizen.

Second, the notion I am a crusader is laughable, like your assertion I ran away to South America.

It is the very lifeblood behind those nights spent with bloodshot eyes and hunched back as you crank out yet another paen to your true love, the Goddess of Anarchy, in the hopes that one more lost soul will wake from their statist-induced slumber and see the light.

There may be a future for you in romance fiction. Maybe gay porn novels.

Catch 22, homie. Make the same baseless assertion you mercilessly pounce on others for

 

[productionhead]

Hellblazer, I can read minds. Fact.

 

[kingofsp]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkJhFn0vdFQ]Say Anything - Anarchy My Dear [with Lyrics] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[learningcurve]

Seriously HB, you need to read your posts before you hit submit... I mean really read them. You basically made G's case for him.

You can relocate to another country with lower rates

So what if you pay a lower rate for state imposed theft... It's still theft.

you can simply stop paying like Wesley Snipes

Ummm and jail instantly comes to mind, the embodiment of the states ability to impose its will on you through acts of violence.

Nobody can ever prove why people pay taxes

Because they are forced to. You have no choice unless you consider heavy financial and or jail penalties choices.

Their reasons are their own and always will be.

They have been made to believe it's their only choice... look at the options.

I can't even bring myself to go through the rest of it.

Please stop and read before you hit submit from now on.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I keep seeing people in this thread making the assertion that taxation is theft, yet nobody has offered any proof.

For taxation to be theft, you have to have a claim of property rights, yet I haven't seen anybody offer any proof of that either.

We're 6 pages into this thread, yet not one person has provided any proof to their assertion of property rights. I'm starting to think that proof will never come, but I'm still holding out hope. Anybody?

 

[Jokerr]

What is a performative contradiction?

Performative contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Examples;

I am dead. (You can't make claims if you're dead)

I am not alive. (same as above)

I don't control myself. (Then who is making your argument?)

I always lie. (This statement cannot be true.)

Nothing is absolute (An absolute statement, which claims absolutes do not exist)

Everything is relative. (Same as above, if everything is relative, so is this statement, making it not objectively true.)



It's easy to spot bad arguments, when the argument contradicts itself.


If you want to deny property, you have to deny ownership of yourself. Which means, you don't control yourself, which means you can't articulate the denial of property.


Here ends Lessons in Logic Part VII

Logic, cool.

Yes, I am denying ownership of myself because the statement itself is redundant. The mind is a product of the brain. It's essentially the same as saying "Every cell of my body owns every cell of my body." Semantic bullshit that doesn't justify property. I am OK with simply asserting "I am."

When you ask me if I control myself, you're only asking if I control my actions, which is in a way circular because you're only
referring to the actions which I do control. I can not stop my heart from beating. I can not stop my catabolism. I can not stop mutations from happening. I can not tell my bone marrow to start producing white blood cells. So, simply asking if I do control myself is nonsensical. I control SOME THINGS, yes.

And we haven't even introduced the problem of free will. How can "I" control myself if I'm just a product of the laws of nature. Does a Lion control itself? Does a chimpanzee control itself and thus own itself?

 

[Jokerr]

I keep seeing people in this thread making the assertion that taxation is theft, yet nobody has offered any proof.

For taxation to be theft, you have to have a claim of property rights, yet I haven't seen anybody offer any proof of that either.

We're 6 pages into this thread, yet not one person has provided any proof to their assertion of property rights. I'm starting to think that proof will never come, but I'm still holding out hope. Anybody?

Slightly off-topic, but I'm not sure whether you're aware of Rothbardian ethics. In any case, here's a nice piece that describes the fundamental nature of his apologetics.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

Pretty sweet, don't you think?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm not sure whether you're aware of Rothbardian ethics. In any case, here's a nice piece that describes the fundamental nature of his apologetics.

Pretty sweet, don't you think?

Slightly off-topic, but I'm not sure whether you're aware of Rothbardian ethics. In any case, here's a nice piece that describes the fundamental nature of his apologetics.

Pretty sweet, don't you think?

Yeah, I've even seen them argue in this thread in support of child porn and even that a child should have the right to consent to sex with adults, as long as the adult offers enough candy to the kid that they say yes. I gave up trying to reason with guerilla a long time ago, but how some of these other guys get suckered into this shit is amazing.

 

[learningcurve]

I keep seeing people in this thread making the assertion that taxation is theft, yet nobody has offered any proof.

For taxation to be theft, you have to have a claim of property rights, yet I haven't seen anybody offer any proof of that either.

We're 6 pages into this thread, yet not one person has provided any proof to their assertion of property rights. I'm starting to think that proof will never come, but I'm still holding out hope. Anybody?

I'm going to ask you to elucidate the top part for me. I don't claim to be an intellectual giant at any time, particulalry at this very moment or on this subject, but it would seem to me that unless it is wholly voluntary in nature, any action which takes something from you that you have earned is indeed theft. I don't remember a specific document I have signed which says I agree with paying tax and I certainly don't remember being offered the opportunity to opt out without penalty. So you see my quandry here; I do something that I feel is taking what is mine, or I don't do it and get punished.

Please make sense of that for me and why does it not qualify as theft?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I'm going to ask you to elucidate the top part for me. I don't claim to be an intellectual giant at any time, particulalry at this very moment or on this subject, but it would seem to me that unless it is wholly voluntary in nature, any action which takes something from you that you have earned is indeed theft. I don't remember a specific document I have signed which says I agree with paying tax and I certainly don't remember being offered the opportunity to opt out without penalty. So you see my quandry here; I do something that I feel is taking what is mine, or I don't do it and get punished.

Please make sense of that for me and why does it not qualify as theft?

For something to be stolen from you, you have to have a legal claim to it don't you. Or absent of laws, you need some kind of claim to ownership or other way of determining property rights, don't you?

If you are going to assert that you have a claim of ownership to anything, can you please provide proof of that ownership? If not, how can something be stolen from you?

I'm not claiming property rights do exist or that they don't exist. I'm not the one making the claim that taxation is theft, you guys are. If you're going to make an assertion you need to provide proof, and I haven't seen it posted yet, that's all I'm saying.

 

[learningcurve]

So the money you earn is not yours? Is that what you are saying?

srs question.

 

[guerilla]

Semantic bullshit that doesn't justify property. I am OK with simply asserting "I am."

Could you assert "I am" if you weren't in control of yourself?

It's not semantics, and if you believe so, you still don't get it.

And we haven't even introduced the problem of free will. How can "I" control myself if I'm just a product of the laws of nature. Does a Lion control itself? Does a chimpanzee control itself and thus own itself?

So now you're claiming that no one can control themselves, not man or animal?

That somehow, all (what seems to be) purposeful action occurs randomly?

 

[guerilla]

it would seem to me that unless it is wholly voluntary in nature, any action which takes something from you that you have earned is indeed theft.

The "libertarians" who "hate the system" are arguing that involuntary relationships are justified.

 

[dreamache]

Sure it is. You can relocate to another country with lower rates, you can simply stop paying like Wesley Snipes, or you can flee to the uninhabitable wastelands of SA like you did. Choices abound.

Jesus christ man.. First, why should I have to relocate? I'm minding my own business, not initiating threats or violence against others, why should I leave?

Second, yeah, you can stop paying like Wesley Snipes, and then end up in fucking prison.

Wow, those are some really great choices. I'll keep paying my taxes, because if I choose not to, it either means (a) I go to prison or (b) I have to flee the fucking country and move away from my family, only to be taxed again.

Listen, you don't have to be a mind reader to know why people pay taxes. They pay taxes because they've been conditioned to do so their entire lives, and because if they don't, they'll be caged.

 

[guerilla]

There is a simple claim.

I exist.

---

Now someone comes along and says, "You owe me taxes" (or you must pay a penalty for driving without a sticker).

Why?

That ^^ is the question we don't have an answer to.

We don't need to define property rights or insist they exist in order to ask the question. Forget the entire idea of property rights.

That someone comes up to me and says "You owe me taxes".

Why is he right or wrong?

Slightly off-topic, but I'm not sure whether you're aware of Rothbardian ethics.

I don't think anyone here is arguing Rothbardian ethics or sourcing Rothbard at all.

That said, if people wanted to break down his argument and avoid emotional histrionics, I'd be curious to hear the rationalizations for why he is wrong.

 

[guerilla]

Listen, you don't have to be a mind reader to know why people pay taxes. They pay taxes because they've been conditioned to do so their entire lives, and because if they don't, they'll be caged.

To be fair, Hellblazer is a statist and he enthusiastically supports caging people for smoking pot.

He's not making nor will he ever make a libertarian argument.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Now someone comes along and says, "You owe me taxes" (or you must pay a penalty for driving without a sticker).

Why?

That ^^ is the question we don't have an answer to.

We don't need to define property rights or insist they exist in order to ask the question. Forget the entire idea of property rights.

That someone comes up to me and says "You owe me taxes".

Why is he right or wrong?

Because you are on "his" land, land that "he" claims sovereignty over and defends with a mixture of consent from the majority of people in your community and force. If you assert that the land is yours, then you must prove that assertion. Otherwise, by staying on his land and working on his land you are consenting to live by his rules, including taxation and stickers on your car if you want to drive on his roads.

Also, if you're going to make the assertion that people only consent to the "taxes for services" arrangement due to the threat of force, then you need to provide proof of that assertion as well. Otherwise you're just pulling shit out of your ass because {insert words}.

 

[dreamache]

Also, if you're going to make the assertion that people only consent to the "taxes for services" arrangement due to the threat of force, then you need to provide proof of that assertion as well. Otherwise you're just pulling shit out of your ass because {insert words}.

The closest to proof is to conduct a nation wide survey.

I'd love to see that survey, because what we'd likely see is most people would respond similarly to how the people Kokesh interviewed near the beginning portion of this video.. But if that survey also poked and prodded a little bit, many might have that uncomfortable reaction most had during the later part of the video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XebGuqD5R0]Is taxation theft? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jokerr]

Could you assert "I am" if you weren't in control of yourself?

It's not semantics, and if you believe so, you still don't get it.

So now you're claiming that no one can control themselves, not man or animal?

That somehow, all (what seems to be) purposeful action occurs randomly?

I'm reluctant to answer that questions because your definition of 'control' is so vague. In any case, I control my fingers, thus letting me type "I am." I do however not control e.g. the cell nucleuses within my body. You're playing with words, and either way 'self-ownership' does not follow, or as you'd say: it's a non sequitur. Furthermore, as I argued before, 'self-ownership' is redundant.

Would you describe an apple falling down from a tree as randomness?

There is a simple claim.

I exist.

---

Now someone comes along and says, "You owe me taxes" (or you must pay a penalty for driving without a sticker).

Why?

That ^^ is the question we don't have an answer to.

We don't need to define property rights or insist they exist in order to ask the question. Forget the entire idea of property rights.

That someone comes up to me and says "You owe me taxes".

Why is he right or wrong?


I don't think anyone here is arguing Rothbardian ethics or sourcing Rothbard at all.

That said, if people wanted to break down his argument and avoid emotional histrionics, I'd be curious to hear the rationalizations for why he is wrong.

You must assume some kind of precondition in order to answer that question.

I exist.

Now someone comes along and says, "You just hit me in the face."

Why is he right or wrong?

If you claim he's wrong, you're assuming he didn't do it. If you claim he's right, you're assuming he did do it.

I think the question is disingenious because naturally someone would be inclined to say "it's wrong" and you'd say "gotcha!" But if someone says it's wrong -- whether they're aware of it or not -- they're assuming you don't owe him taxes because you haven't provided any evidence of it. In lack of evidence, the "natural conclusion" or gut feeling if you like, would be to say "it's wrong", although you're subconsciously or consciously actually making an assumption.

Let's dig into the realm of morality some other time.

 

[guerilla]

The closest to proof is to conduct a nation wide survey.

Survey doesn't actually prove anything as long as the gun remains in the room.

This can be understood a priori. Without free choice, and the opportunity to demonstrate choice (opinion != action) then it's impossible to say that people consent.

(Which was irrelevant anyway, as I do not consent)

This is all basic economic reasoning, but because so few people understand economics, it's foreign to them.

As far as the lack of evidence doesn't indicate violence matters, I think that a pretty good circumstantial argument can be made that people pay their taxes and their are violence consequences to not doing so. If it isn't causative, it certainly seems correlative.

Although I would be more than happy for my "opponents" in this thread to make the argument for government by donation, if they believe violence doesn't matter and people actually choose to pay taxes.