Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Constitution applies as a set of rules and guidelines for and to the federal gubmint....Period.?You're crossing up federal with state and local.
And even taking your roads argument at face value, the feds only set forth the specs and the centralized funding mechanism (a stupid idea if there ever was one, but that's another argument) for the interstate system....The responsibility of actually building and maintaining the roads still falls to the states/localities....Likewise, though there exist scads of federal agents with police powers (another really stupid idea), there is no federal fire department.
Who said anything about federal government? I did not mean to imply that I was talking strictly about federal government by using the constitution, I am referring to all government. While most government should be determined as low and close to the people as possible funding those spate levels is essentially an identical task. If we oppose taxes on the federal level because it is an offence to the NAP then I dont see how that would be any different at the state, city, municipality or any other level of government.
Do you make a distinction when it comes to taxes? I did not get that from TASBs posts. It seems to me that he is completely against all form of taxation. You have not really presented your take (or I missed it) on taxation either. How do you think that the government should be funded?
I guess our Gang isn't the worst Gang. But it is a Gang. It rules by fear & intimidation, just like any other Gang does.
I guess our Gang isn't the worst Gang. But it is a Gang. It rules by fear & intimidation, just like any other Gang does.
So if your ilk were in charge, it would still be a gang? Just a kinder gentler gang?
So it's not theft because the government does it? You're serious?
exactly.
Most people do consent to paying taxes ... if you don't you are free to leave. Why is that hard to understand?Horseshit. That doesn't conform to any moral, ethical or legal definition of "consent."
So corporations can't ever be guilty of theft because no single individual is involved? How about the Mafia?
Have you ever seen a corporation behind bars? Individuals steal and are punished as individuals.
So it's not theft because the government does it? You're serious?
exactly.
I debated with myself whether to respond to this because the only proper response is insulting, but I guess you deserve it.
Anyone who thinks a given action is moral simply because the government does it is an imbecile. Furthermore, you're a servile toady. What magic does the government perform that makes their behavior sainted when the likes of you and me would be considered criminals for doing exactly the same thing? It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that kind of "logic."
You still haven't explained how not leaving constitutes "consent." If Guido the leg breaker comes into my business and tells me I can pay him $1000/month for his "protection," go somewhere else or have my legs groken, have I "consented" if I pay him the money?
No one consents to paying taxes.
So corporations can't ever be guilty of theft because no single individual is involved? How about the Mafia?
Have you ever seen a corporation behind bars? Individuals steal and are punished as individuals.
So corporations can't steal or commit crimes? What about Enron?
Do you really think you have to report a coupon as income? Do you really think your child has to report his allowance for cutting the grass? Do you really think you have to pay your wife for sex? ROFL you really are over the top. The easiest solution to compulsory taxation of income is to shelter your income. Sheltering income is a time honored tradition.
How are yo going to barter to pay your mortgage or get the groceries? Barter simply isn't an option in a modern economy.
Yes bartering is an option in this economy. In many ways it's a better option. When I say bartering I mean it in the broader sense. Think families living together again vs. everyone borrowing so they can live alone in big empty houses. Think food cooperatives where the food you eat is your own food and/or food traded with others of you cooperative. It's the next big thing around some parts. It's similar to the share cropping of old. As another example I have some acreage here, I could quickly and easily set up shop with chickens, and a large greenhouse for poison free food. Really the only thing stopping us from disconnecting from the grid and US greenbacks is ourselves.
ROFL bartering by definition is not measurable as transactions. There are more barters every day than there are US cash transactions. The number of "cash" transactions are grossly exaggerated by this government's printing of free cash like it grows on trees. Your green backs are worthless.How are yo going to barter to pay your mortgage or get the groceries? Barter simply isn't an option in a modern economy.
Yes bartering is an option in this economy. In many ways it's a better option. When I say bartering I mean it in the broader sense. Think families living together again vs. everyone borrowing so they can live alone in big empty houses. Think food cooperatives where the food you eat is your own food and/or food traded with others of you cooperative. It's the next big thing around some parts. It's similar to the share cropping of old. As another example I have some acreage here, I could quickly and easily set up shop with chickens, and a large greenhouse for poison free food. Really the only thing stopping us from disconnecting from the grid and US greenbacks is ourselves.
Bartering will never account for more than a small percentage of transactions. Money makes all the vast panapoly of financial transactions we see today possible. Fir example, the payment of interest simply isn't possible in a barter economy. There's a reason money was invented, and it's not because it's inferior to barter. How the heck would Boeing build 747s in a barter economy? It simply wouldn't be possible.
Barter is a joke.
Facepalm? If I can trade some work to barter for a Cessna why should I pay give the government half my income? Why should I pay the government to get in line and be frisked at my airport when I can fly myself?
You appear to have a reading comprehension problem. You also appear to have a lack of knowledge regarding the difference between local taxation and federal taxation.Facepalm? If I can trade some work to barter for a Cessna why should I pay give the government half my income? Why should I pay the government to get in line and be frisked at my airport when I can fly myself?
First, you would needa license for that. Second, you indicated you own land. Do you pay taxes on that land? Did you buy the land with tomatoes and cucumbers? This plane you want to barter for, did the person you are trading with for the plane barter with the company to acquire the plane?
When you go to work, do you come home at the end of the week with turnips and parsley?
This barter assertion you're trying to push off is as laughable as your attempt to provide an example of voluntary taxation. It's not a workable model. Sure, in some ways you can barter in networks for certain goods. But that is not the mode every person can instill to acquire their needed goods and services.
The argument is ridiculous and not worthy of a facepalm, so an implied one was given.
ROFL bartering by definition is not measurable as transactions. There are more barters every day than there are US cash transactions. The number of "cash" transactions are grossly exaggerated by this government's printing of free cash like it grows on trees. Your green backs are worthless.Yes bartering is an option in this economy. In many ways it's a better option. When I say bartering I mean it in the broader sense. Think families living together again vs. everyone borrowing so they can live alone in big empty houses. Think food cooperatives where the food you eat is your own food and/or food traded with others of you cooperative. It's the next big thing around some parts. It's similar to the share cropping of old. As another example I have some acreage here, I could quickly and easily set up shop with chickens, and a large greenhouse for poison free food. Really the only thing stopping us from disconnecting from the grid and US greenbacks is ourselves.
Bartering will never account for more than a small percentage of transactions. Money makes all the vast panapoly of financial transactions we see today possible. Fir example, the payment of interest simply isn't possible in a barter economy. There's a reason money was invented, and it's not because it's inferior to barter. How the heck would Boeing build 747s in a barter economy? It simply wouldn't be possible.
Barter is a joke.
The liberals and republicans have made a joke of this economy. Bartering is a valid means for folks to elect to not participate in the joke. Free people have options. You think that because you have some temporary control over some folks through taxation that you can shove a knife in their back and tell them what to do?
I don't need Boeing to get myself where I need to go. Why should I give up half my income to the federal government?
So I can buy a plane ticket? ROFL No thanks. Nah I think I'll just game the system and reduce my reported income to as low as possible while increasing my barter income to as high as I feel like.
You appear to have a problem making a point. if your contention is to "cut down on FRN income" by bartering, then that's all fine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I'll ask again, do you pay property taxes? Can you trade a bushel of corn and a barrel of apples with the state to meet this obligation? The answer is obvious.
I have no difficulty distinguishing between federal, state and local taxation. And again, it's a moot point to the discussion of taxation.
) etc...
You appear to have a problem making a point. if your contention is to "cut down on FRN income" by bartering, then that's all fine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I'll ask again, do you pay property taxes? Can you trade a bushel of corn and a barrel of apples with the state to meet this obligation? The answer is obvious.
I have no difficulty distinguishing between federal, state and local taxation. And again, it's a moot point to the discussion of taxation.
No it's not obvious. And no the issue is not moot.
Most states have what we call home owner's exemption where the state can't take your property if you fail to pay real-estate taxes. Further there are many states with programs that pay people not to farm and/or buy the goods the farmer does farm. When the payments are made, if the farmer owes a tax bill, they will deduct what he owes from the goods and or program payments. Thus the farmer does not have to pay the taxes the government pays them. Additionally, many locales will allow you to sub-divide your property or lease it to the state in trade. Thus allowing you to barter property for cash to pay for property taxes... which in effect is what you are doing anyway when you agree to live in a location that has property taxes.
To your point on federal vs. local taxes being a moot issue. With regard to this libertarian's thoughts, there is a marked difference between federal and state/local taxes. You are the one that keeps asking me about local taxes. I don't have a problem with local taxes. You are probably the only libertarian I've ever known that does not understand the difference between being against federal income taxes that are being used to fund welfare and being for local sales and real-estate taxes to fund police, fire, rescue, and schools. I really have no idea why you keep equating the two.
The topic of taxation here, is whether or not is it compulsory and hence theft. Not whether you agree with some of it at the local level vs. what goes on at the federal level.
Taxation, as I have explained, is compulsory and coercion is an act of aggression. Whether it be from the local, state or federal governments.
Now, as your first assertion in this thread regarding taxation goes, you brought up voluntary taxation. A theory, not a practice. At which point I asked you to provide an example of voluntary taxation. You could not produce one.
Then you went on a rant regarding barter. Saying you can barter your way around and for a plane to fly yourself (
You're the only "libertarian" I've come across on this board that can not stick to a topic, and instead jumps around like your ass is on fire..
The topic of taxation here, is whether or not is it compulsory and hence theft. Not whether you agree with some of it at the local level vs. what goes on at the federal level.
Taxation, as I have explained, is compulsory and coercion is an act of aggression. Whether it be from the local, state or federal governments.
Now, as your first assertion in this thread regarding taxation goes, you brought up voluntary taxation. A theory, not a practice. At which point I asked you to provide an example of voluntary taxation. You could not produce one.
Then you went on a rant regarding barter. Saying you can barter your way around and for a plane to fly yourself (
You're the only "libertarian" I've come across on this board that can not stick to a topic, and instead jumps around like your ass is on fire..
Your opinions are not facts. The issue of federal taxation is only being conflated with state taxation by you. No one else. Just you.
Federal Taxation, is not compulsory, countless explanations have been given to you to explain how one can avoid them in part and entirely. Countless. For example, if you pay state taxes they come off the federal taxes thus the federal taxes are not compulsory. If they were compulsory there would not be countless ways to ignore them.
Your point is to compulsory taxes that are paid only through coercion and not through compliance. If one consents freely their own accord and without concern of any possible threat then it's not coercion. If the tax is optional it's not compulsory.
I freely pay my local taxes, I vote for them, I choose to live here and pay them, I signed a note that said I would pay them, no one in my local government will come force me to pay them even though I said I would, because I have a homeowners exemption. Therefore, my local taxes are not compulsory nor are they paid in response to coercion.
