Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[RKMBrown]

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.

So the state pays (with someone elses money) people not to farm and to buy goods from the farmer so he can then pay the tax? And you probably agree with this process too.

You mean other taxpayers pay the farmers tax in that situation, not the government.

>>> So the state pays (with someone elses money) people not to farm and to buy goods from the farmer so he can then pay the tax? You mean other taxpayers pay the farmers tax in that situation, not the government.


A tax exemption requires no payment from anyone. For example, +10 to the bill -10 to pay the bill=0... see I can add and subtract in one expression without taking money from anyone. The bill is 10 the credit is 10. No one has to pay the credit... the farmer is essentially exempted. No printing of money or taxation was required and no animals were killed to make this example.

>>> And you probably agree with this process too.

I agree that at the local level, locals should be able to gather to consider mutually agreed upon incentives to keep farms intact vs allowing homeowner real-estate rates to force farmers to sell their farms for real-estate tracts. I do not agree that we should do this at the federal level. Why should I pay income tax in TX to fund farmers in Idaho?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Your opinions are not facts. The issue of federal taxation is only being conflated with state taxation by you. No one else. Just you.

i made no distinction between them, you did. It's all compulsory none the less and therefore, an act of aggression. That's not an opinion, it is a fact.

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.

Yes, they are compulsory. The examples you gave do not mean that you are free to carry on not paying taxes without the use of force against you. What you offered for examples to not pay boil down to breaking the law. Which will get you thrown in jail at best, and shot in the face at worst. it's still compulsory if you're threatened by violence for noncompliance.

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.

Someone needs a dictionary adn a few courses on English. Compliance does not mean voluntary. Try again. The rest of what you said here turns back to your voluntary tax theory. one that has never been done and you can cite no example of the use. So again, show us an example of this optional tax. I'll wait.

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.

So you dont have to pay any taxes at the local level and no harm or confiscation of your property will come to you for not paying because you signed a note stating you would pay, and even though you would breach this note of contract, it will not matter and you're free to choose to pay or not.... BULLSHIT.

 

[RKMBrown]

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 ( ) etc...

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.

You're wrong on that score. If you don't pay your state taxes, people from the government will take your house or whatever else they can get their hands on to cover the taxes. It isn't voluntary. I certainly don't pay them voluntarily, so that blows your whole theory out of the water.

While you are correct that the state may garnish your wages or take your cash and other non-essentials. If you decide to stop working they won't take your home if you have a home-owner's exemption, at least not in my state. Further, if you decide to stop working they will probably even pay your house note and forgive your taxes.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Is this guy serious?

 

[RKMBrown]

Your opinions are not facts. The issue of federal taxation is only being conflated with state taxation by you. No one else. Just you.

i made no distinction between them, you did. It's all compulsory none the less and therefore, an act of aggression. That's not an opinion, it is a fact.

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.

Yes, they are compulsory. The examples you gave do not mean that you are free to carry on not paying taxes without the use of force against you. What you offered for examples to not pay boil down to breaking the law. Which will get you thrown in jail at best, and shot in the face at worst. it's still compulsory if you're threatened by violence for noncompliance.

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.

Someone needs a dictionary adn a few courses on English. Compliance does not mean voluntary. Try again. The rest of what you said here turns back to your voluntary tax theory. one that has never been done and you can cite no example of the use. So again, show us an example of this optional tax. I'll wait.

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.

So you dont have to pay any taxes at the local level and no harm or confiscation of your property will come to you for not paying because you signed a note stating you would pay, and even though you would breach this note of contract, it will not matter and you're free to choose to pay or not.... BULLSHIT.

Yes or no you and your locals can vote to eliminate or increase real estate taxes in your locale?

Yes or no folks living in unincorporated locations do not pay the same taxes as those living in an incorporated location such as a city's city limits?

Yes or no there is a difference between local taxes and federal taxes?

Yes or no there is a difference between income taxes and real-estate taxes?

Yes or no there is a difference between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes or no you and your locals can vote to eliminate or increase real estate taxes in your locale?

No. Voting can be done to elect representative who may claim to take up such a cause. In observation adn experience, representative government under this guise is a myth. There is no direct democracy here.

Yes or no folks living in unincorporated locations do not pay the same taxes as those living in an incorporated location such as a city's city limits?

irrelevant. However, there are changes in the amount of taxes paid from state to state, from county to county or from income bracket to income bracket. Still this changes nothing of your assertion that taxation is not compulsory.

Yes or no there is a difference between local taxes and federal taxes?

No. Taxation is compulsory whether done at the local level, or from DC.

Yes or no there is a difference between income taxes and real-estate taxes?

Yes, although irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes or no there is a difference between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone?

Yes, which is my argument in a nutshell. Care to give us an example of a voluntary tax?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes or no you and your locals can vote to eliminate or increase real estate taxes in your locale?

No. Voting can be done to elect representative who may claim to take up such a cause. In observation adn experience, representative government under this guise is a myth. There is no direct democracy here.

Yes or no folks living in unincorporated locations do not pay the same taxes as those living in an incorporated location such as a city's city limits?

irrelevant. However, there are changes in the amount of taxes paid from state to state, from county to county or from income bracket to income bracket. Still this changes nothing of your assertion that taxation is not compulsory.



No. Taxation is compulsory whether done at the local level, or from DC.

Yes or no there is a difference between income taxes and real-estate taxes?

Yes, although irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes or no there is a difference between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone?

Yes, which is my argument in a nutshell. Care to give us an example of a voluntary tax?

See, that's the problem. On so many issues you are just plain wrong.

>>> No. Voting can be done to elect representative who may claim to take up such a cause. In observation adn experience, representative government under this guise is a myth. There is no direct democracy here.

The correct answer was yes. See voting by ballot and by hand wherein locals choose by themselves what and how much locals will or will not be taxed. To many examples to name here, but bonds building schools that temporarily increase income or sales taxes are one example.

>>> irrelevant. However, there are changes in the amount of taxes paid from state to state, from county to county or from income bracket to income bracket. Still this changes nothing of your assertion that taxation is not compulsory.

The correct answer was yes. You can be living in the same county but one mile out of some the city limits and avoid certain utilities assessments etc.

>>> Yes or no there is a difference between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone?

>>> Yes, which is my argument in a nutshell.
Ok, so you got the answer right. Now what is the difference? Can you actually say it? Or does saying the difference is signing the contract void your argument that all taxes are involuntary, coercive, etc..?

>>> Care to give us an example of a voluntary tax?
As already stated if you voluntarily sign a contract to pay a tax, and then voluntarily pay the tax, you in fact voluntarily paying a voluntary tax. Signing a real estate contract that says you will pay real-estate taxes was one of my many examples. Buying a lottery ticket was another. Sales taxes was another. Road use taxes was another. Buying and selling goods that carry an excise tax vs goods that do not is yet another. The number of voluntary taxes are really only limited to your willingness to agree "what the difference is" between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're wrong on that score. If you don't pay your state taxes, people from the government will take your house or whatever else they can get their hands on to cover the taxes. It isn't voluntary. I certainly don't pay them voluntarily, so that blows your whole theory out of the water.

While you are correct that the state may garnish your wages or take your cash and other non-essentials. If you decide to stop working they won't take your home if you have a home-owner's exemption, at least not in my state. Further, if you decide to stop working they will probably even pay your house note and forgive your taxes.

That's your idea of "voluntary?" Seriously?

 

[bripat9643]

Is this guy serious?

You usually get these sorts of lame arguments from liberals. To be a libertarian means you agree with non aggression principle.

However, lot's of people call themselves libertarians who really aren't. Even Bill Clinton claimed to be a libertarian once.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're wrong on that score. If you don't pay your state taxes, people from the government will take your house or whatever else they can get their hands on to cover the taxes. It isn't voluntary. I certainly don't pay them voluntarily, so that blows your whole theory out of the water.

While you are correct that the state may garnish your wages or take your cash and other non-essentials. If you decide to stop working they won't take your home if you have a home-owner's exemption, at least not in my state. Further, if you decide to stop working they will probably even pay your house note and forgive your taxes.

That's your idea of "voluntary?" Seriously?

My "idea of voluntary" is really quite simple. If the girl says yes and she's of legal age, then it's voluntary. If the girl says no and you know her without her permission, then it's not voluntary. It's really not that complex.

 

[RKMBrown]

Is this guy serious?

You usually get these sorts of lame arguments from liberals. To be a libertarian means you agree with non aggression principle.

However, lot's of people call themselves libertarians who really aren't. Even Bill Clinton claimed to be a libertarian once.

Where did I say I did not agree with non-aggression in principle? The only thing I've disagreed with is the coloring all current and future forms of taxation as requiring aggression. IOW I see there are solutions available to us vs. the above doom and gloom of anarchy or tyranny nothing in between is possible arguments being made above.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

See, that's the problem. On so many issues you are just plain wrong.

>>> No. Voting can be done to elect representative who may claim to take up such a cause. In observation adn experience, representative government under this guise is a myth. There is no direct democracy here.

The correct answer was yes. See voting by ballot and by hand wherein locals choose by themselves what and how much locals will or will not be taxed. To many examples to name here, but bonds building schools that temporarily increase income or sales taxes are one example.

If there were direct voting on measure regarding taxes there would be no taxes at the local level. Not sure where you live, but i've never heard of it and I've lived in several states and in several different local areas in those states.

>>> irrelevant. However, there are changes in the amount of taxes paid from state to state, from county to county or from income bracket to income bracket. Still this changes nothing of your assertion that taxation is not compulsory.

The correct answer was yes. You can be living in the same county but one mile out of some the city limits and avoid certain utilities assessments etc.

the corrrect answer was irrelevant. As it is irrelevant to the discussion.

>>> Care to give us an example of a voluntary tax?
As already stated if you voluntarily sign a contract to pay a tax, and then voluntarily pay the tax, you in fact voluntarily paying a voluntary tax. Signing a real estate contract that says you will pay real-estate taxes was one of my many examples. Buying a lottery ticket was another. Sales taxes was another. Road use taxes was another. Buying and selling goods that carry an excise tax vs goods that do not is yet another. The number of voluntary taxes are really only limited to your willingness to agree "what the difference is" between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone.

The only difference in these examples is that you're free to choose not to own property. The "contract" that says you'll pay a real estate tax isn't negotiable. You can either pay or walk away. in that, it's the same argument as "if you dont like taxation, go live somewhere else." They're not asking, they are telling you. Its an act of aggression.

The same is arguably said about user taxes, such as road use, etc...which is the ONE form of tax i actually agreed the government could use without coercion (arguably).


Alright, I'm gonna leave this guy to it. it's just a walk in circles here.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Is this guy serious?

You usually get these sorts of lame arguments from liberals. To be a libertarian means you agree with non aggression principle.

However, lot's of people call themselves libertarians who really aren't. Even Bill Clinton claimed to be a libertarian once.

Where did I say I did not agree with non-aggression in principle? The only thing I've disagreed with is the coloring all current and future forms of taxation as requiring aggression. IOW I see there are solutions available to us vs. the above doom and gloom of anarchy or tyranny nothing in between is possible arguments being made above.

You just fail at your argument. There is no doom and gloom in this conversation. I've stated my position on taxation. You failed to deliver a coherent argument. better luck next time with bullshit like "voluntary tax".

 

[RKMBrown]

See, that's the problem. On so many issues you are just plain wrong.

>>> No. Voting can be done to elect representative who may claim to take up such a cause. In observation adn experience, representative government under this guise is a myth. There is no direct democracy here.

The correct answer was yes. See voting by ballot and by hand wherein locals choose by themselves what and how much locals will or will not be taxed. To many examples to name here, but bonds building schools that temporarily increase income or sales taxes are one example.

If there were direct voting on measure regarding taxes there would be no taxes at the local level. Not sure where you live, but i've never heard of it and I've lived in several states and in several different local areas in those states.

>>> irrelevant. However, there are changes in the amount of taxes paid from state to state, from county to county or from income bracket to income bracket. Still this changes nothing of your assertion that taxation is not compulsory.

The correct answer was yes. You can be living in the same county but one mile out of some the city limits and avoid certain utilities assessments etc.

the corrrect answer was irrelevant. As it is irrelevant to the discussion.

>>> Care to give us an example of a voluntary tax?
As already stated if you voluntarily sign a contract to pay a tax, and then voluntarily pay the tax, you in fact voluntarily paying a voluntary tax. Signing a real estate contract that says you will pay real-estate taxes was one of my many examples. Buying a lottery ticket was another. Sales taxes was another. Road use taxes was another. Buying and selling goods that carry an excise tax vs goods that do not is yet another. The number of voluntary taxes are really only limited to your willingness to agree "what the difference is" between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone.

The only difference in these examples is that you're free to choose not to own property. The "contract" that says you'll pay a real estate tax isn't negotiable. You can either pay or walk away. in that, it's the same argument as "if you dont like taxation, go live somewhere else." They're not asking, they are telling you. Its an act of aggression.

The same is arguably said about user taxes, such as road use, etc...which is the ONE form of tax i actually agreed the government could use without coercion (arguably).


Alright, I'm gonna leave this guy to it. it's just a walk in circles here.

Saying there can be no choice or voluntary in a system that involves taxation is equivalent to saying all sex is rape. You are wrong. You admit there is a difference between force and consensual payment yet you won't agree that the difference is consent. You are the one talking in circles.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

uh huh.

 

[RKMBrown]

uh huh.

Glad to see you finally "consent."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't agree at all. I'm just not interested in walking the circle with you. You've made more erroneous statements in this discussion that can be counted. And you apparently can not differentiate between consent through fear of force/violence, and voluntary.

 

[bripat9643]

While you are correct that the state may garnish your wages or take your cash and other non-essentials. If you decide to stop working they won't take your home if you have a home-owner's exemption, at least not in my state. Further, if you decide to stop working they will probably even pay your house note and forgive your taxes.

That's your idea of "voluntary?" Seriously?

My "idea of voluntary" is really quite simple. If the girl says yes and she's of legal age, then it's voluntary. If the girl says no and you know her without her permission, then it's not voluntary. It's really not that complex.

If the government says you will pay this tax, then it's not voluntary.

It's really not that complex.

Paying taxes because you work for a living isn't voluntary.

 

[bripat9643]

Is this guy serious?

You usually get these sorts of lame arguments from liberals. To be a libertarian means you agree with non aggression principle.

However, lot's of people call themselves libertarians who really aren't. Even Bill Clinton claimed to be a libertarian once.

Where did I say I did not agree with non-aggression in principle? The only thing I've disagreed with is the coloring all current and future forms of taxation as requiring aggression. IOW I see there are solutions available to us vs. the above doom and gloom of anarchy or tyranny nothing in between is possible arguments being made above.

All your examples of "voluntary taxes" violate the non-aggression principle, so you obviously don't agree with it. By definition, taxes are money the government takes from you without your consent. All taxes violate the non-aggression principle. Your so-called "solutions" do not eliminate the aggression. Having to alter your decision because a third party imposes a cost on you does not make that behavior voluntary. It does not constitute consent to the payment. That's the precise definition of involuntary.

 

[bripat9643]

See, that's the problem. On so many issues you are just plain wrong.

>>> No. Voting can be done to elect representative who may claim to take up such a cause. In observation adn experience, representative government under this guise is a myth. There is no direct democracy here.

The correct answer was yes. See voting by ballot and by hand wherein locals choose by themselves what and how much locals will or will not be taxed. To many examples to name here, but bonds building schools that temporarily increase income or sales taxes are one example.

If there were direct voting on measure regarding taxes there would be no taxes at the local level. Not sure where you live, but i've never heard of it and I've lived in several states and in several different local areas in those states.

>>> irrelevant. However, there are changes in the amount of taxes paid from state to state, from county to county or from income bracket to income bracket. Still this changes nothing of your assertion that taxation is not compulsory.

The correct answer was yes. You can be living in the same county but one mile out of some the city limits and avoid certain utilities assessments etc.

the corrrect answer was irrelevant. As it is irrelevant to the discussion.

>>> Care to give us an example of a voluntary tax?
As already stated if you voluntarily sign a contract to pay a tax, and then voluntarily pay the tax, you in fact voluntarily paying a voluntary tax. Signing a real estate contract that says you will pay real-estate taxes was one of my many examples. Buying a lottery ticket was another. Sales taxes was another. Road use taxes was another. Buying and selling goods that carry an excise tax vs goods that do not is yet another. The number of voluntary taxes are really only limited to your willingness to agree "what the difference is" between volunteering to pay for something by signing a contract and being forced to pay something without signing a contract by birth alone.

The only difference in these examples is that you're free to choose not to own property. The "contract" that says you'll pay a real estate tax isn't negotiable. You can either pay or walk away. in that, it's the same argument as "if you dont like taxation, go live somewhere else." They're not asking, they are telling you. Its an act of aggression.

The same is arguably said about user taxes, such as road use, etc...which is the ONE form of tax i actually agreed the government could use without coercion (arguably).


Alright, I'm gonna leave this guy to it. it's just a walk in circles here.

It's the same moral argument as if Guido the Leg Breaker says "pay me protection or move your business out of my territory or I'll break your legs." No one would call that "voluntary."