Taxation Is Robbery

Truth-Bringer, has anyone ever actually physically held a gun to your head and forced you to pay taxes?

Would it make you feel better if they did? They certainly would if I refused to pay and kept resisting them. Right now, they have the house of a couple who've refused to pay surrounded by a paramilitary police force. And, yes, the police are armed with guns:

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=6626288
 
Werbung:
So someone IS holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take those benefits?

Yes, if I refuse to pay, someone will eventually come and hold a gun to my head.

If a person refuses to pay, you will receive threatening letters demanding payment. If you ignore them, eventually a case will be filed in court. If you ignore the summons and fail to appear, a warrant will be issued for your arrest and men with guns will come to your home to take you to jail. If you tell them you're not going and to leave your property, they will forcibly try to take you in. They can put a gun to your head, and if you physically resist and fight back, they can and will legally kill you.

By the way, if a thief says "give me your wallet or else" and you give him your wallet even though he never pulled out a gun, was that still theft?
 
One cannot TACITLY consent to anything when UNDER DURESS.

Apparently, you DID - when you enjoyed the benefits of citizenship. You can CHOOSE not to accept citizenship, by the way.

There are no alleged benefits without money first being stolen from free individuals. Government produces nothing on its own. It must first steal from others.

Civil liberties? Protection from harm? Freedom to pursue happiness? You do not consider these 'benefits'?

Understand?

I understand perfectly.

You freely take benefits and begrudge the responsibility that goes along with it.

That is easily rectified, you know.

You may remove yourself from the society that shelters you. That way, no one owes you and you owe no one in return.
 
Yes, if I refuse to pay, someone will eventually come and hold a gun to my head.

If a person refuses to pay, you will receive threatening letters demanding payment. If you ignore them, eventually a case will be filed in court. If you ignore the summons and fail to appear, a warrant will be issued for your arrest and men with guns will come to your home to take you to jail. If you tell them you're not going and to leave your property, they will forcibly try to take you in. They can put a gun to your head, and if you physically resist and fight back, they can and will legally kill you.

By the way, if a thief says "give me your wallet or else" and you give him your wallet even though he never pulled out a gun, was that still theft?


I"m not talking about "refusing to pay" - go back and read my question.
 
The government that governs least governs best

Whether you want to expand the role of the Feds in our lives or shrink it, I think we all would agree that government is a highly inefficient way to accomplish useful work.

An example is our welfare program. The government confiscates a dollar from tax payers to redistribute this dollar to others defined as "needy". After all the expenses are paid, the government manages to give the "needy" a whopping 29 cents. This is an overhead factor of 71%.

Private charities are considerd to be inefficient if their overhead factor is greater than 25%. Most well managed charity have an overhead factor of 15% and there are several with overhead factors of 7-8%. So let's compare a tax dollar with a dollar in the hands of a private charity.

If the "needy" in one community require $10,000 assistance per week the government must confiscate $34,483 to distribute the needed $10K. (10,000/.29). If it were legal for a private charity to replace the governemnt, it would need to collect (voluntarily) $11,765 to distribute the same $10K. (10,000/.85).

So which would situation would you prefer? Voluntariily give $11,765 or have confiscated $34,483. Both amounts provide precisely the same relief to the "needy".

There are many, many, many government agencies that deserve outright elimination and many more that deserve a serious date with the paring knife. Federal, state, city, they are all highly inefficient and wasteful of confiscated dollars.

We measure the government's take in dollars but it is really much more than just paper. Taxes are a forced removal of human blood, sweat and tears. Because taxes are mandatory and removed from taxpayers at the point of a gun (figuratively, anyway) taxation is a form of slavery. Those that earn are forced to deliver parts of their earning to the government. Peasants used to have the king conficate 10% of their crops and force them to serve in the king's army 3 months every 2 years. This is actually less than our givernemnt requires of most of us.

Taxation removes our some of our labors and some of the fruits of our labors without our direct consent.

How is this effectively different from slavery?

Here is my list of guvment agencies that should be seriously pared or ouright eliminated:

1. Any agency that provides any form of public assistance.
2. Any agency that provides "education" (can you say indoctrination and propaganda)
3. Any agency that provides public funds to public broadcasting
4. Any agency that provides public funds to support arts
5. FEMA, OSHA, EPA, DEA, TSA, Home "Security", Social "Security", IRS.

Anyone else really believe these guys deserve our blood, sweat and tears?
 
Here is my list of guvment agencies that should be seriously pared or ouright eliminated:

1. Any agency that provides any form of public assistance.

The idea of the political organization IS mutual assistance. It stems from the fact that not everyone is self-sufficient.

2. Any agency that provides "education" (can you say indoctrination and propaganda)

Ignorance is one of the worst evils to human dignity - hence the addage that education is a right, NOT a privilege.

3. Any agency that provides public funds to public broadcasting

Unless you can practically and instantly convene EVERY member of the body politic from time to time and when necessity dictates....

4. Any agency that provides public funds to support arts

You do not feel the need to surround yourself with beauty?

5. FEMA, OSHA, EPA, DEA, TSA, Home "Security", Social "Security", IRS.

You begrudge the functions of the state that seeks to provide a more humane society - a service that you derive direct or indirect benefit?

Such individualism is simply unprecedented.
 
Would it make you feel better if they did? They certainly would if I refused to pay and kept resisting them. Right now, they have the house of a couple who've refused to pay surrounded by a paramilitary police force. And, yes, the police are armed with guns:

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=6626288

When you talk about this whole "Gun to my head" thing the implication is that there are two options: pay taxes or get shot (that's generally the choice when someone has a gun to your head: do what they want or they'll shoot you). That is not the choice presented by the federal government. Their choice: pay taxes or go to prison. Yes, they are prepared to use force in order to ensure that this choice is upheld - however, they won't just come out and shoot tax evaders unless given a reason. Like, for instance, violently resisting arrest.

In the example you posted the male tax evader has promised that they will not take him alive. That statement escalates the issue. The government would have been more than happy to take them peacefully and incarcerate them for their crime. Instead, he has chosen to escalate the situation into a violent one. He has bypassed the choice given him by the government and introduced a third option of his own making: the choice to die fighting. If there is a gun to his head, it is there because he put it there.
 
When you talk about this whole "Gun to my head" thing the implication is that there are two options: pay taxes or get shot (that's generally the choice when someone has a gun to your head: do what they want or they'll shoot you). That is not the choice presented by the federal government. Their choice: pay taxes or go to prison.

Most burglars come into a home when everyone is away and take what they want without threatening anyone. Does our criminal code still view it as theft? Most muggars just say "Give me your money or else." Some don't even present a weapon. They just reach into their pocket and act as if they have one. If the person hands over their money, was it still theft? Or is that a donation in your Bizarro World of morality?

Consider the following:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html


Yes, they are prepared to use force in order to ensure that this choice is upheld -

Gee, you think?

however, they won't just come out and shoot tax evaders unless given a reason.

Well how awfully gracious of them... So polite... You need to go rent "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" and "Waco: A New Revelation" if you want to see what "reasons the feds are given" to act on.


Like, for instance, violently resisting arrest.

How dare people meet force with force when faced with having their property stolen! Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of such behavior.

In the example you posted the male tax evader has promised that they will not take him alive. That statement escalates the issue.

Kind of like that pesky little Thomas Jefferson, writing that pesky little Declaration of Independence and escalating that whole Revolutionary War issue...

The government would have been more than happy to take them peacefully and incarcerate them for their crime.

Golly gee, no kidding...

Instead, he has chosen to escalate the situation into a violent one. He has bypassed the choice given him by the government and introduced a third option of his own making: the choice to die fighting. If there is a gun to his head, it is there because he put it there.

Wrong. He never initiated force against anyone. The government was the one who first initiated the threat of force. Stop obfuscating the facts and distorting the truth of the matter.

I don't advocate a violent response to these petty tyrants, simply because they are far too brutal and have the general population brainwashed into gullible little supportive slaves like you. But I do understand why some people make that choice. When all is said and done, they are being aggressed against and deprived of their unalienable rights.
 
So someone IS holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take those benefits?

Non sequitur. Threat of force had already been applied.

For example:

A thief breaks into your home and steals money, some tools and some lumber. He uses the tools and the lumber to build a bridge over the creek behind your house so he can escape into the woods. You can of course continue to use the new bridge in the future. Does the fact that you derived some fringe benefit from the theft alter the nature of the crime? No.
 
Apparently, you DID - when you enjoyed the benefits of citizenship. You can CHOOSE not to accept citizenship, by the way.

No, one cannot choose citizenship if it is thrust on them at birth.

Civil liberties? Protection from harm? Freedom to pursue happiness? You do not consider these 'benefits'?

I do not consider myself to have many civil liberties. I am not free to keep all I earn. I am not free to question government officials without risk of reprisal. I am limited by a whole host of laws in regards to engaging in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities.

I do not have protection from harm. Our military creates enemies for us - at our expense. And the Supreme Court has ruled that police have no obligation to protect the public.

I am not free to pursue happiness in my opinion, as happiness to me is the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose. The government will not let me keep all I earn. It tells me what I can and can't put into my body. It tells me who I can and can't sleep with. It controls me in a vast number of ways.


I understand perfectly.

You freely take benefits and begrudge the responsibility that goes along with it.

No, you still don't get it. I don't want any of your benefits. Kindly stop stealing my money and you'll have your wish.

I wish you would take responsibility for your own life instead of using force to make other people pay for the things you want.

That is easily rectified, you know.

You may remove yourself from the society that shelters you. That way, no one owes you and you owe no one in return.

Why don't you move? Why doesn't the "the state" just move? What gave "the state" the first claim on the land? Who is entitled to occupy the space? Most of you collectivists immediately assume "the state" automatically owns everything. Given "the state's" history of conquest and plunder, I'd say homesteading and voluntary exchange are the only true ethical means of property exchange/acquisition. "The state" doesn't rightfully own any property - the people do.
 
No, one cannot choose citizenship if it is thrust on them at birth.

I do not consider myself to have many civil liberties. I am not free to keep all I earn. I am not free to question government officials without risk of reprisal. I am limited by a whole host of laws in regards to engaging in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities.

I do not have protection from harm. Our military creates enemies for us - at our expense. And the Supreme Court has ruled that police have no obligation to protect the public.

I am not free to pursue happiness in my opinion, as happiness to me is the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose. The government will not let me keep all I earn. It tells me what I can and can't put into my body. It tells me who I can and can't sleep with. It controls me in a vast number of ways.




No, you still don't get it. I don't want any of your benefits. Kindly stop stealing my money and you'll have your wish.

I wish you would take responsibility for your own life instead of using force to make other people pay for the things you want.



Why don't you move? Why doesn't the "the state" just move? What gave "the state" the first claim on the land? Who is entitled to occupy the space? Most of you collectivists immediately assume "the state" automatically owns everything. Given "the state's" history of conquest and plunder, I'd say homesteading and voluntary exchange are the only true ethical means of property exchange/acquisition. "The state" doesn't rightfully own any property - the people do.

I am awed at the abundance of nonsense that is possible in a single post!

Homestead operates on the principle of first occupancy. So the state, which represents the body politic formed by the social contract has primacy over the land. Understand that homestead is a legal principle embodied in the torrens system of title - hence an INVENTION of the state.

And even if, for some absurd twist of logic, your rights are indefeasible, the laws that guarantee the protection of these rights are derived from the same body politic you reject.

So, for all intents and purposes, the only law that operates for you is the law that NATURE left you with - survival of the fittest, the primacy of the strong, etc.

By the law of nature:

1. you are incapable of ejecting the state from the vicinity of your person by your powers, alone;

2. you are incapable of political association with people of like mind that would help you remove the state (since that would entail being beholden to another);

therefore, your only recourse, (if indeed the state is intolerable), is to remove yourself from it.

This is a simple matter, as I pointed out. Renounce the citizenship you were born with. Just because you were born with it, doesn't mean you are compelled to it. Citizenship is as free an association as the social contract which brought it about.

You don't even have to physically remove yourself from the state's boundaries (since the only place for you is either in the water or on polar ice). You need only stay in a place where the various appendages and organs of government are non-existent. Theoretically, there's no such place, but practically, that would be a place where no people EVER go.

Understand?
 
Werbung:
Non sequitur. Threat of force had already been applied.

For example:

A thief breaks into your home and steals money, some tools and some lumber. He uses the tools and the lumber to build a bridge over the creek behind your house so he can escape into the woods. You can of course continue to use the new bridge in the future. Does the fact that you derived some fringe benefit from the theft alter the nature of the crime? No.

You are dodging the question.


If you kept to the ethical integrity of your principles you would refuse to take advantage of those benefits because they were the product of robbery. If indeed you do make use of those benefits willingly, then you are no better than those you denounce.
 
Back
Top