Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alright, maybe I'll put it this way... the only reason anyone wants a government in the first place is to do things that would be wrong if done on their own. For example, if they want some cause to be funded, they can't personally threaten or coerce others into funding it, so they have the state do it for them - that's the whole purpose of taxation...to force others to pay for what you want, whether they want to or not.
The social contract theory is a fallacy, unless you believe the government is the rightful owner of everything and everyone within "its" borders. I don't, because the only just way to acquire property is by homesteading/original appropriation (finding unclaimed property and making use of it), by voluntary trade, or having it gifted to you.
The atheist/theist statist/anarchist thing... 18 examples below. This series actually turned me into an atheist.
Um no. I don't disagree with specific spending like many do, not spending in general. It is only the libertarians that claim taxation as theft that do. I am forced to pay for Trump's rich tax cut but my money I imagine is paid for stuff I do agree with like say education spending.
The problem is government did it all the time. If you lived near an area that the government wanted to make a fort to protect that state/territory, you were paid at best and if not forced off the land if it was needed there. Luckily for many when we needed to do this as a nation, there was a lot of available land for someone to buy or even a country (or state with National Guard armories) to declare other land as their's. Now, it is harder. I mean look at the problems with new highway creation or even the Trump border wall, all have issues of having to go and buy land off private owners for government use.
Voluntary state is unproven so we don't know what can happen in one. We haven't had one in modern (Mesopotamian forward) history. Anyone's expectation of it is as right as anyone else's. That is the beauty of an unproven theory, we are neither wrong nor right because there is no hard proof to say it can or cannot happen this way. For instance, I find that we will see polluted rivers happen because of corporate greed similar to the 1960's (though we had government but we didn't have government economical interference.) You can't prove I'm wrong and offer that people might boycott and that will be the government power. I can't prove you're wrong either because there is no proof that the individual boycott is as strong.
To your video, no true scottsman can happen with any ideology whether religious or political. Theists and statists are no more likely to use it than an antheist and libertarian would. Also who watches the watchmen, is a justified argument for statism. I mean it gives a check or at least an illusion of one. I can counter this with one of the many donations for any of a number of political causes and it removes a check, like say having Scott Pruitt run the EPA when he was an anti-EPA lobbyist.
I'm cool with that as a temporary bridge to complete voluntaryism.
If people start taking steps in that direction I would encourage them to keep exploring and going deeper.
As for me, I'm out. I can't vote or use other forms of violence (the political process in any way, shape or form). There's no way back.
That's why I don't support Adam Kokesh's run for President in 2020 even though his platform is to immediately dissolve the federal government. I understand it's a way to raise awareness (because there's no chance he'll win) but statists have to reject the process that goes along with their ideology at the same time.
Stop, just stop. You fear the state, your post proves that so don't spin because you are embarrassing yourself further. You continue to know not of what you speak and just spout off libertarian bon mart talking points. The state don't do that. There are no "guns" to tax fraud unless you protest the police when they come to your door. Also I hope if/when you are old enough to receive Social Security, you will return the money to the government because that is the same thing you accuse of the government with taxes. If not, you are a hypocrite and I have no respect for them.
I don't fear the State; I fear the State's inherent VIOLENCE.
Those cops coming to my door with AR-15s are enforcers--goons--for the State, coming to steal from me.
If you break ANY of the State's made-up, arbitrary laws--ones that don't violate natural law, such as ingesting substances with which the State disagrees--people with guns arrest or fine you. If you resist, you are killed. It's simple.
As for SS, just give me the money back that I've involuntarily paid into it. Do the same for everyone else, then shut it down. No hypocrisy needed.
If people start taking steps in that direction I would encourage them to keep exploring and going deeper.
As for me, I'm out. I can't vote or use other forms of violence (the political process in any way, shape or form). There's no way back.
That's why I don't support Adam Kokesh's run for President in 2020 even though his platform is to immediately dissolve the federal government. I understand it's a way to raise awareness (because there's no chance he'll win) but statists have to reject the process that goes along with their ideology at the same time.
Oh I am as well. I was just trying to give her a little nudge. They have to start somewhere.
Yeah, I'm kind of torn about Kokesh. He's such a badass, and I see where he's coming from, but...I dunno.
Says the guy who's obsessed with a non-viable political system.
Anarchy is apolitical. The only way a political system could form under anarchy would be by consensual agreement between parties. That system would only apply to those under contract. So contractual law could be construed as a voluntary political system if that's how it is drawn up.
This political system would only apply to the consenting parties though. Other parties geographically closest to those under contract would not be in the political system by virtue of proximity. Also, human beings squeezed out of vaginas would not be subject to the political system as well.
Oh I am as well. I was just trying to give her a little nudge. They have to start somewhere.
Yeah, I'm kind of torn about Kokesh. He's such a badass, and I see where he's coming from, but...I dunno.
It's a tough situation for him and well us.
A few months back he got arrested for pot and speeding. He said something along the lines that he was encouraged by the government's zeal to hassle him. Means he has ruffled a few feathers.
I don't fear the State; I fear the State's inherent VIOLENCE.
Those cops coming to my door with AR-15s are enforcers--goons--for the State, coming to steal from me.
If you break ANY of the State's made-up, arbitrary laws--ones that don't violate natural law, such as ingesting substances with which the State disagrees--people with guns arrest or fine you. If you resist, you are killed. It's simple.
As for SS, just give me the money back that I've involuntarily paid into it. Do the same for everyone else, then shut it down. No hypocrisy needed.
Denile isn't just a river in Africa to you I guess. You have complained about the state and have an unreasonable problem with them. The laws we see aren't arbitrary except for the whole marijuana issue, I'll give you that. The problem is many people violate natural law in the same way say driving under the influence laws (medicine, alcohol, marijuana or other hard drugs) or weapons of war for private use to hunt humans. It is a way to defend the ultimate natural rights of people.
As long as you keep enacting a system where some people get more than they pay for, while others get less than they pay for, you will never be able to find agreement that your system is "fair".
Um no. I don't disagree with specific spending like many do, not spending in general. It is only the libertarians that claim taxation as theft that do. I am forced to pay for Trump's rich tax cut but my money I imagine is paid for stuff I do agree with like say education spending.
I am so sick of hearing that complaint.
Here's who pays now, in relation to their share of the income:
Look in the mirror and admit to yourself if you're a net contributor, or a net taker. (Hint: The bottom 95% are net takers. They're NOT pulling their weight.)
And lest anyone thinks that's an anomaly and the REALLY high income earners pay far less than that, here's the actual IRS data on the percentage of the total income they earn vs. the percentage of the federal income tax revenue they pay.
Top 0.1%, minimum income: $2.22 million
Earn 10.19% of the total income
But pay 19.5% of the total federal income tax revenue
Very similar to the the differential between what the top 1% (minimum income: $481,000) earns and what they pay.
When the 2018 data is released, we'll see if the disproportion remains, or dwindled substantially, thereby creating a more fair taxation system.
As long as you keep enacting a system where some people get more than they pay for, while others get less than they pay for, you will never be able to find agreement that your system is "fair".
Absolute truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
