Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[RKMBrown]

I agreed to pay "my" property tax on 25% of my land and 100% of the value of my house. I carefully selected this location among many others. I moved here of my own volition. I signed the agreement to pay the tax on my property only after observing what I was buying with the contract and of my own free volition deciding that the contract and payments were fair. I was not coerced into signing the agreement even though I knew I did not have to sign it. I could have rented or bought somewhere else, but I freely volunteered to this location and this set of laws and this tax. Further, in my opinion the taxes are fair and equitable for the services rendered.

Additionally "my" state and local sales taxes are also voluntarily paid for by myself. I fully understand and participate in the negotiations for said rate and I volunteer that I agree that the rate is fair and equitable for what I receive.

I bought a lottery ticket a few years back. I fully understand that the lottery ticket carried with it a large percentage of revenue for the state government. I voluntarily bought the lottery ticket. I understand that I do not have to buy a lottery ticket. The purchase of the lottery ticket is only for a chance that I might win money and also to volunteer to pay additional taxes. I agree that the money I volunteered for the lottery tax was spent in a fair and equitable fashion. I understand that it is also my right to gamble in other ways that have a higher chance for earning money.

You're still mistaking the difference between compliance and voluntary. As for your real estate purchase, you agreed to purchase the property based on your desires. That part is voluntary. The part that is not, is paying the taxes. Just because YOU believe it is a "fair" deal, doesn't mean that everyone else does. The terms of paying the taxation are not negotiable. You MUST pay them or the suffer consequences imposed by the state. That part is compliance. If the TAX was voluintary, everyone would choose whether or not to pay and suffer no consequences in either direction for their decision. But you and I both know it does not work that way. So you're making an invalid point with the real estate example. Yes, you voluntarily bought the property, you do not voluntarily pay the tax.

Your local tqaxes are not voluntary just because you agree with the terms. You can not decide later that the terms are unacceptable and terminate the agreement. paying the taxes are a matter of compliance.

Same goes for the lottery ticket. The purchase is voluntary, the taxation is not. It's compliance.


Ok, I'm done now. This circle is well worn out.

If you were correct then there would be no basis for contracts for services between two parties. By your definition, all contracts would be void after you signed them because the mere act of enforcing any contract would be an unlawful act of aggression.

By your definition there can be no voluntary taxation because all taxation is involuntary. You are rewriting the term voluntary as involuntary, then telling me I'm talking in circles by disagreeing that voluntarily signing a contract makes the contract involuntary.

I never said that because, I say the deal is fair, that it's fair for everyone else. What I said is that no one is holding a gun to folks heads to sign the contract. If they don't want to sign the contract they are free to not sign the contract. There is a marked difference between volunteering to sign a contract to acquire an item that one desires and having your income taken from you without your permission.

When one signs a contract for payment one accepts the responsibility for making the payments. When one signs a marriage contract one accepts that responsibility. The act of being married and accepting your responsibilities is not an act of aggression by your partner. Buying a piece of property is not unlike getting married to the region in which the property is located. You are agreeing to be a financing member of a group of property owners. If you don't agree don't sign on the dotted line. Find a piece of property that you can get title for that does not carry any further responsibility of the owner.

Being a libertarian does not mean shedding your contractual responsibilities. Or does it? Can you point me to where libertarians don't believe signing and/or agreeing to service contracts.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm sorry you can not grasp this, man. I am. No other way for me to explain it than to say, we're not talking about a contract, we're talking about a demand. The fact that you bought the house or the ticket was a voluntary act. You were not forced to buy the house. However, the issue is not in buying the house/land, it's the stipulation within regarding taxation that we are referring to here, not the contract. That tax obligation is on every house, in every city (sure it varies in obligation) in every state and all you can do is seek to mitigate it. That makes it compliance, not voluntary. They aren't asking for the tax. it is a demand. A demand that your only recourse to is to 1) comply 2) not be involved in the purchase at all 3) not comply and suffer the consequences.

If the only action you really have is to not purchase, thats the same, as explained before, as telling someone to leave. No peaceful exchange there. It's compulsory the same as telling someone to leave an area, pay guido, or get your legs broken.

ALL three are acts of aggression.

Your argument is again, invalid.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm sorry you can not grasp this, man. I am. No other way for me to explain it than to say, we're not talking about a contract, we're talking about a demand. The fact that you bought the house or the ticket was a voluntary act. You were not forced to buy the house. However, the issue is not in buying the house/land, it's the stipulation within regarding taxation that we are referring to here, not the contract. That tax obligation is on every house, in every city (sure it varies in obligation) in every state and all you can do is seek to mitigate it. That makes it compliance, not voluntary. They aren't asking for the tax. it is a demand. A demand that your only recourse to is to 1) comply 2) not be involved in the purchase at all 3) not comply and suffer the consequences.

If the only action you really have is to not purchase, thats the same, as explained before, as telling someone to leave. No peaceful exchange there. It's compulsory the same as telling someone to leave an area, pay guido, or get your legs broken.

ALL three are acts of aggression.

Your argument is again, invalid.

You appear to be making the argument that property (land in particular) is a god given right. You also appear to be making the argument that no responsibilities should be demanded of you by other landowners. Your basis is that any such demands that you be similarly responsible for service payments as all the other landowners of a region, is too close to some straw-man about a guy name guido that comes around to demand you pay him protection money because you saw that in the godfather? The point to the shared service contract is for the people to have a way to keep guido at bay. I agree if guido gets elected as the law and the payments are subsequently doubled to make guido rich... well yeah the pooch got screwed and the landowners should revolt in face of the takeover of their previously agreed to process to keep guido in jail.

Only together and with vigilance will we keep guido at bay. If we let guido divide us then we are vulnerable.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

ok, dude. You dont get it and now are simply making accuses for the theft in order to justify it. Landownership is a "god" given right. Surely, no one should be forced to sell their land, and no one should middleman a sale making demands either.

You're in favor of demands, which equals aggression. That's cool, as long as you realize that it puts your philosophy at odds with the NAP.

 

[RKMBrown]

ok, dude. You dont get it and now are simply making accuses for the theft in order to justify it. Landownership is a "god" given right. Surely, no one should be forced to sell their land, and no one should middleman a sale making demands either.

You're in favor of demands, which equals aggression. That's cool, as long as you realize that it puts your philosophy at odds with the NAP.

Where do I go to get some of this god given land that is rightfully mine? Is this one of those new Obama programs like free cell phones?

How is the "demand" that someone has to pay for land to become a landowner any different than the "demand" that someone has to pay for landownership services? How dare you indicate that I have to "pay" for something. That would be aggression to make me pay for my god given right to landownership, no?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

ok, dude. You dont get it and now are simply making accuses for the theft in order to justify it. Landownership is a "god" given right. Surely, no one should be forced to sell their land, and no one should middleman a sale making demands either.

You're in favor of demands, which equals aggression. That's cool, as long as you realize that it puts your philosophy at odds with the NAP.

Where do I go to get some of this god given land that is rightfully mine? Is this one of those new Obama programs like free cell phones?

How is the "demand" that someone has to pay for land to become a landowner any different than the "demand" that someone has to pay for landownership services? How dare you indicate that I have to "pay" for something. That would be aggression to make me pay for my god given right to landownership, no?

I never indicated that you had a right to land. You have a right to land ownership. That's means you can settle a plot (no longer valid) or purchase it through voluntary exchange. Another false argument from you.

It's different in the same way you shouldn't be forced to hold life insurance or medical insurance, you ignorant shit.

I'm gonna leave you on the troll now.

 

[RKMBrown]

ok, dude. You dont get it and now are simply making accuses for the theft in order to justify it. Landownership is a "god" given right. Surely, no one should be forced to sell their land, and no one should middleman a sale making demands either.

You're in favor of demands, which equals aggression. That's cool, as long as you realize that it puts your philosophy at odds with the NAP.

Where do I go to get some of this god given land that is rightfully mine? Is this one of those new Obama programs like free cell phones?

How is the "demand" that someone has to pay for land to become a landowner any different than the "demand" that someone has to pay for landownership services? How dare you indicate that I have to "pay" for something. That would be aggression to make me pay for my god given right to landownership, no?

I never indicated that you had a right to land. You have a right to land ownership. That's means you can settle a plot (no longer valid) or purchase it through voluntary exchange. Another false argument from you.

It's different in the same way you shouldn't be forced to hold life insurance or medical insurance, you ignorant shit.

I'm gonna leave you on the troll now.

Your the one trolling. First you say volunteering to pay for services for your land is aggression because they "demand" you "pay" for the services associated with your land. Then you say landownership is a god given right. Then you say it's no longer valid. Then you say the voluntary exchange for payment for land is not aggression because it's voluntary. Then you say the voluntary exchange for payment for services for land is aggression because it's not voluntary.

The voluntary payments for land are "tied" to the voluntary services payments for the "same land" that you voluntarily bought. If you can't buy land without buying the services contract for it then the act of buying the land is tied to the act of buying the services contract. That you can't understand this makes you sound really stupid.

I understand that you would like to extract the services contract from the land you are purchasing, but that is not an option for land that is tied to a services contract.

Services are not the only thing tied to land. Liens, mineral rights, water rights, impervious use laws, and many other things are also tied to land.

Buying a piece of land does not put you on an island separated from the world. Those grains of sand you bought do not extend miles into the air and under the ground. That tract is just a tract. You can't change the laws of the land just because you don't like them. You can't just start murdering people just because they wander onto your land. You are not shielded from the law by the act of purchasing land. You can't buy land that has liens without accepting those liens or buying them out.

Duh.

 

[RKMBrown]

ok, dude. You dont get it and now are simply making accuses for the theft in order to justify it. Landownership is a "god" given right. Surely, no one should be forced to sell their land, and no one should middleman a sale making demands either.

You're in favor of demands, which equals aggression. That's cool, as long as you realize that it puts your philosophy at odds with the NAP.

Where do I go to get some of this god given land that is rightfully mine? Is this one of those new Obama programs like free cell phones?

How is the "demand" that someone has to pay for land to become a landowner any different than the "demand" that someone has to pay for landownership services? How dare you indicate that I have to "pay" for something. That would be aggression to make me pay for my god given right to landownership, no?

I never indicated that you had a right to land. You have a right to land ownership. That's means you can settle a plot (no longer valid) or purchase it through voluntary exchange. Another false argument from you.

It's different in the same way you shouldn't be forced to hold life insurance or medical insurance, you ignorant shit.

I'm gonna leave you on the troll now.

To your side track regarding medical insurance. Why should the government license a doctor that is not insured? Why should we the people be liable for licensing that doctor? Or are you saying there should be no liability for licensing people? Or that there should be no licensing/warranting of skill for doctors? You lost me on this one. Most of your arguments are dumb but at least they are admirable for their desire. Not this one.

To your side track on holding life insurance. No that's not the same as paying for a service contract for the land you voluntarily own. You don't "need" to own land. It's not a god given right. It's not a god given right because you have to earn it. You have a god given right to your income, not a god given right to a particular tract of land. You have to earn it, and in most cases maintain it, which means keep earning it.

On one part of your dribble, we can agree. Health insurance mandates are aggression. You have a god given right to life. Mandating someone pay for the right to life is a vile aggression.

 

[bripat9643]

Your the one trolling. First you say volunteering to pay for services for your land is aggression because they "demand" you "pay" for the services associated with your land. Then you say landownership is a god given right. Then you say it's no longer valid. Then you say the voluntary exchange for payment for land is not aggression because it's voluntary. Then you say the voluntary exchange for payment for services for land is aggression because it's not voluntary.

The voluntary payments for land are "tied" to the voluntary services payments for the "same land" that you voluntarily bought. If you can't buy land without buying the services contract for it then the act of buying the land is tied to the act of buying the services contract. That you can't understand this makes you sound really stupid.

I understand that you would like to extract the services contract from the land you are purchasing, but that is not an option for land that is tied to a services contract.

Services are not the only thing tied to land. Liens, mineral rights, water rights, impervious use laws, and many other things are also tied to land.

Buying a piece of land does not put you on an island separated from the world. Those grains of sand you bought do not extend miles into the air and under the ground. That tract is just a tract. You can't change the laws of the land just because you don't like them. You can't just start murdering people just because they wander onto your land. You are not shielded from the law by the act of purchasing land. You can't buy land that has liens without accepting those liens or buying them out.

Duh.

You're obviously immune to logic so we've all given up trying to educate you. Don't expect any further responses.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your the one trolling. First you say volunteering to pay for services for your land is aggression because they "demand" you "pay" for the services associated with your land. Then you say landownership is a god given right. Then you say it's no longer valid. Then you say the voluntary exchange for payment for land is not aggression because it's voluntary. Then you say the voluntary exchange for payment for services for land is aggression because it's not voluntary.

The voluntary payments for land are "tied" to the voluntary services payments for the "same land" that you voluntarily bought. If you can't buy land without buying the services contract for it then the act of buying the land is tied to the act of buying the services contract. That you can't understand this makes you sound really stupid.

I understand that you would like to extract the services contract from the land you are purchasing, but that is not an option for land that is tied to a services contract.

Services are not the only thing tied to land. Liens, mineral rights, water rights, impervious use laws, and many other things are also tied to land.

Buying a piece of land does not put you on an island separated from the world. Those grains of sand you bought do not extend miles into the air and under the ground. That tract is just a tract. You can't change the laws of the land just because you don't like them. You can't just start murdering people just because they wander onto your land. You are not shielded from the law by the act of purchasing land. You can't buy land that has liens without accepting those liens or buying them out.

Duh.

You're obviously immune to logic so we've all given up trying to educate you. Don't expect any further responses.

I'm an engineer. Immune to logic.. ROFL I'm immune to lib logic, yes.

 

[bripat9643]

Your the one trolling. First you say volunteering to pay for services for your land is aggression because they "demand" you "pay" for the services associated with your land. Then you say landownership is a god given right. Then you say it's no longer valid. Then you say the voluntary exchange for payment for land is not aggression because it's voluntary. Then you say the voluntary exchange for payment for services for land is aggression because it's not voluntary.

The voluntary payments for land are "tied" to the voluntary services payments for the "same land" that you voluntarily bought. If you can't buy land without buying the services contract for it then the act of buying the land is tied to the act of buying the services contract. That you can't understand this makes you sound really stupid.

I understand that you would like to extract the services contract from the land you are purchasing, but that is not an option for land that is tied to a services contract.

Services are not the only thing tied to land. Liens, mineral rights, water rights, impervious use laws, and many other things are also tied to land.

Buying a piece of land does not put you on an island separated from the world. Those grains of sand you bought do not extend miles into the air and under the ground. That tract is just a tract. You can't change the laws of the land just because you don't like them. You can't just start murdering people just because they wander onto your land. You are not shielded from the law by the act of purchasing land. You can't buy land that has liens without accepting those liens or buying them out.

Duh.

You're obviously immune to logic so we've all given up trying to educate you. Don't expect any further responses.

I'm an engineer. Immune to logic.. ROFL I'm immune to lib logic, yes.

Your questions were all answered previously, yet here we are back for another trip around the wheel of circular logic.

Taxes are not voluntary. End of story.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're obviously immune to logic so we've all given up trying to educate you. Don't expect any further responses.

I'm an engineer. Immune to logic.. ROFL I'm immune to lib logic, yes.

Your questions were all answered previously, yet here we are back for another trip around the wheel of circular logic.

Taxes are not voluntary. End of story.

Some taxes are voluntary. Beginning of story.

 

[FA_Q2]

After all this I still am left with the same questions as well.

No one ever spoke to how it is possible to fund things like a modern military, police, fire and the hundreds of other things that the government across all levels takes care of with a ‘voluntary’ system. Again, a question I asked a many posts ago, how do you take a voluntary use charge for those services? It is not like I am going to ‘use’ police, fire or military (the last one is the most stark and federal).

I also submit that a use charge like taxing gas transactions for roads is just as voluntary as property taxes for purchasing a piece of property. BOTH are forced charges for the purchase of an item and both are aggressive in that manner.

Personally, I don’t see ANY way for government to obtain any funds that are not forcible purchases. That is simply how the government operates. IF fees are applied to international goods, the government is FORCING you to pay a charge that you are not consenting to if they purchase that product. The same applies to any charge.

TASB, if you have not already walked away in frustraition I would like some more insight on this. As you have explained property taxes as forced, I don’t see how that explanation cannot be applied to ANY use charge from the government.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's his point he does not want a government he wants economic anarchy and/or some form of single payer system. He wants economic anarchy / single payer because governments need funds to operate and there is no way to pay government for services without some form of demand based taxation.

And yes, his argument applies to all forms of payment for everything. You won't be allowed to buy anything in his world because no one would be allowed to charge for anything. Since you can't buy anything there is no reason to pay anyone for work either. Seller's won't be allowed demand payment for products and services in his world. It's an assine argument to make everything 100% free. It's assine because if everything were free then no one would work for anything. We'd just be walking around taking what is rightfully ours, I think he called it our god given right to property. Now sure in some circles people would work for free to make things that others take. But for the most part people would tire of that sort of exchange as soon as the give and take no longer felt equitable.

Think star trek where everything is just there for them to use and there appears to be no paychecks or charges for room board, food, clothes etc.

 

[bripat9643]

That's his point he does not want a government he wants economic anarchy and/or some form of single payer system. He wants economic anarchy / single payer because governments need funds to operate and there is no way to pay government for services without some form of demand based taxation.

And yes, his argument applies to all forms of payment for everything. You won't be allowed to buy anything in his world because no one would be allowed to charge for anything. Since you can't buy anything there is no reason to pay anyone for work either. Seller's won't be allowed demand payment for products and services in his world. It's an assine argument to make everything 100% free. It's assine because if everything were free then no one would work for anything. We'd just be walking around taking what is rightfully ours, I think he called it our god given right to property. Now sure in some circles people would work for free to make things that others take. But for the most part people would tire of that sort of exchange as soon as the give and take no longer felt equitable.

Think star trek where everything is just there for them to use and there appears to be no paychecks or charges for room board, food, clothes etc.

Now you're really venturing into the land of make-believe. I have made none of the claims you are making. All I have said is that taxes are not voluntary. That statement is irrefutable.

End of story.

Your belief that the fact that taxes are not voluntary means no one should be able to charge for anything is simply absurd.

I don't know why you presume to call yourself "libertarian." You don't know the slightest thing about it.

 

[bripat9643]

After all this I still am left with the same questions as well.

No one ever spoke to how it is possible to fund things like a modern military, police, fire and the hundreds of other things that the government across all levels takes care of with a ‘voluntary’ system. Again, a question I asked a many posts ago, how do you take a voluntary use charge for those services? It is not like I am going to ‘use’ police, fire or military (the last one is the most stark and federal).

I also submit that a use charge like taxing gas transactions for roads is just as voluntary as property taxes for purchasing a piece of property. BOTH are forced charges for the purchase of an item and both are aggressive in that manner.

I agree. All taxes are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.

Personally, I don’t see ANY way for government to obtain any funds that are not forcible purchases. That is simply how the government operates. IF fees are applied to international goods, the government is FORCING you to pay a charge that you are not consenting to if they purchase that product. The same applies to any charge.

TASB, if you have not already walked away in frustraition I would like some more insight on this. As you have explained property taxes as forced, I don’t see how that explanation cannot be applied to ANY use charge from the government.

Whether the libertarian scheme is workable is entirely another discussion. My only purpose here is to quash the notion that there is such a thing as "voluntary taxes." There aren't. That's why taxing people to achieve some aim is always a moral issue.

 

[FA_Q2]

After all this I still am left with the same questions as well.

No one ever spoke to how it is possible to fund things like a modern military, police, fire and the hundreds of other things that the government across all levels takes care of with a ‘voluntary’ system. Again, a question I asked a many posts ago, how do you take a voluntary use charge for those services? It is not like I am going to ‘use’ police, fire or military (the last one is the most stark and federal).

I also submit that a use charge like taxing gas transactions for roads is just as voluntary as property taxes for purchasing a piece of property. BOTH are forced charges for the purchase of an item and both are aggressive in that manner.

I agree. All taxes are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.

Personally, I don’t see ANY way for government to obtain any funds that are not forcible purchases. That is simply how the government operates. IF fees are applied to international goods, the government is FORCING you to pay a charge that you are not consenting to if they purchase that product. The same applies to any charge.

TASB, if you have not already walked away in frustraition I would like some more insight on this. As you have explained property taxes as forced, I don’t see how that explanation cannot be applied to ANY use charge from the government.

Whether the libertarian scheme is workable is entirely another discussion. My only purpose here is to quash the notion that there is such a thing as "voluntary taxes." There aren't. That's why taxing people to achieve some aim is always a moral issue.

I would point out that this ‘scheme’ is not the ONLY way that libertarians see the world nor do I think that it even represents a majority opinion. My problem is that I don’t see the government as capable of getting the funding that it legitimately needs under this concept (particularly since I don’t even think that there is anything that the government could do that would fall outside what TASB definition of aggression.

Libertarians DO recognize the necessity of a government. In that, they must also recognize that there is need to fund the operations that the government needs to partake in (as slavery is defiantly outside of the libertarian model).

 

[TakeAStepBack]

After all this I still am left with the same questions as well.

No one ever spoke to how it is possible to fund things like a modern military, police, fire and the hundreds of other things that the government across all levels takes care of with a ‘voluntary’ system. Again, a question I asked a many posts ago, how do you take a voluntary use charge for those services? It is not like I am going to ‘use’ police, fire or military (the last one is the most stark and federal).

I also submit that a use charge like taxing gas transactions for roads is just as voluntary as property taxes for purchasing a piece of property. BOTH are forced charges for the purchase of an item and both are aggressive in that manner.

Personally, I don’t see ANY way for government to obtain any funds that are not forcible purchases. That is simply how the government operates. IF fees are applied to international goods, the government is FORCING you to pay a charge that you are not consenting to if they purchase that product. The same applies to any charge.

TASB, if you have not already walked away in frustraition I would like some more insight on this. As you have explained property taxes as forced, I don’t see how that explanation cannot be applied to ANY use charge from the government.

AS I've said, it's arguable about whether user taxes on goods is not compulsory. I don't necessarily hold that to be true, but some good arguments have been put forth to me for it to actually be arguable (vs. running in a 6 page circle).

As for police, fire and military, you can most certainly use those. For instance, I explained earlier regarding fire, if you have no contract with a private fire brigade, they could issue that out on services rendered. They show up, and you sign for their service. It could be done as an act of faith in the community to show and give their service free to show it is rather essential to get folks onboard, etc... Same with police or security. To me, these items are better left to a private contractor in order to foster the most competition. Which will raise service levels and cost less ultimately.

The military should be, or could be funded through a war bonds program when needed. Frankly, it's only due to out LONG running standing armies that all warfare is so sophisticated in the first place. We'd have been much better off not creating a war society. Now that it is here, there is no turning back. So we'll have to ride it out and taxation will be needed to maintain it.

 

[RKMBrown]

After all this I still am left with the same questions as well.

No one ever spoke to how it is possible to fund things like a modern military, police, fire and the hundreds of other things that the government across all levels takes care of with a ‘voluntary’ system. Again, a question I asked a many posts ago, how do you take a voluntary use charge for those services? It is not like I am going to ‘use’ police, fire or military (the last one is the most stark and federal).

I also submit that a use charge like taxing gas transactions for roads is just as voluntary as property taxes for purchasing a piece of property. BOTH are forced charges for the purchase of an item and both are aggressive in that manner.

I agree. All taxes are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.

Personally, I don’t see ANY way for government to obtain any funds that are not forcible purchases. That is simply how the government operates. IF fees are applied to international goods, the government is FORCING you to pay a charge that you are not consenting to if they purchase that product. The same applies to any charge.

TASB, if you have not already walked away in frustraition I would like some more insight on this. As you have explained property taxes as forced, I don’t see how that explanation cannot be applied to ANY use charge from the government.

Whether the libertarian scheme is workable is entirely another discussion. My only purpose here is to quash the notion that there is such a thing as "voluntary taxes." There aren't. That's why taxing people to achieve some aim is always a moral issue.

You are FOS. Show me one pic of an tax agent point a gun to your head to get you to pay your bill.

 

[Contumacious]

After all this I still am left with the same questions as well.

No one ever spoke to how it is possible to fund things like a modern military, police, fire and the hundreds of other things that the government across all levels takes care of with a ‘voluntary’ system. Again, a question I asked a many posts ago, how do you take a voluntary use charge for those services? It is not like I am going to ‘use’ police, fire or military (the last one is the most stark and federal).

I also submit that a use charge like taxing gas transactions for roads is just as voluntary as property taxes for purchasing a piece of property. BOTH are forced charges for the purchase of an item and both are aggressive in that manner.

I agree. All taxes are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.

Personally, I don’t see ANY way for government to obtain any funds that are not forcible purchases. That is simply how the government operates. IF fees are applied to international goods, the government is FORCING you to pay a charge that you are not consenting to if they purchase that product. The same applies to any charge.

TASB, if you have not already walked away in frustraition I would like some more insight on this. As you have explained property taxes as forced, I don’t see how that explanation cannot be applied to ANY use charge from the government.

Whether the libertarian scheme is workable is entirely another discussion. My only purpose here is to quash the notion that there is such a thing as "voluntary taxes." There aren't. That's why taxing people to achieve some aim is always a moral issue.

You are FOS. Show me one pic of an tax agent point a gun to your head to get you to pay your bill.

Excude me ding dong, but the BATF - a branch of the US Treasury - was in Waco, TX because the Davidians had a $200.0 Tax Bill.

Wake the fuck up.

.