Why taxation is illegitimate.

[leanlifter1]

I believe that this issue is entitled to it's own thread so here goes. Consider the definition of theft for instance "Theft - In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."
So with that being said if I don't agree to paying a tax levy it is theft against my person so long as the property in question which is money or other forms of actual wealth not fiat currency such as Gold or Silver for that matter is legitimately owned and or earned by me. To pay taxes is to willingly accept your subservience as an economic slave and lesser being to the the "power elite". Ok now that I have mulled it over some more I remembered that "money" or more accurately "Legal Tender" is not owned by you or me it is owned by the Federal Reserve which is no more federal that Federal Express. I guess the question I am trying to get at and maybe someone here knows the answer to is that what is the actual agreement and rights or EULA for lack of better word LOL to anyone that uses legal tender or Federal Reserve Notes as a means of currency ? Did I automatically and unwittingly submit my rights and lawful protections that come along with ownership and entitlement of property by way of just accepting as payment for services rendered using Federal Reserve Notes as they are not my property to begin with even though I own the labor and or services rendered that ;legitimately earned me the money ? Me thinks we had better get back onto the "Gold Standard" or some form of new currency "Bitcoin" perhaps that puts the people back into power and far away from oppression.

[MultiCanimefan]

I agree wholeheartedly. Taxation is indeed theft, so much more good could be done by accepting voluntary donations to keep up infrastructure, private police forces and services.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/9/12 12:43 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. Taxation is indeed theft, so much more good could be done by accepting voluntary donations to keep up infrastructure, private police forces and services.

I clearly and truly do not agree with taxation however that being said I do not advocate for you or anyone else that is a Citizen of the US to avoid paying taxes as the nation and or state will send the goons after you and you will "Pay or stay" in prison to repay your illegitimately forced Taxation debt. I live in Canada and have not payed a penny to the income Tax Levy since 2006 but in Canada they do not imprison for "Tax evasion" so I am cool for now. I always ask the Government income tax branch "Revenue Canada" for an invoice for what I am being charged or illegitimately "Levied" for and I always get the same blank faced stupid assed hollow answer LOL.

[Feoric]

Are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

[Camarohusky]

At 11/9/12 02:00 AM, Feoric wrote: Are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

No, he's just the only one that knows the 'truth'.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/9/12 10:52 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

No, he's just the only one that knows the 'truth'.

Actually I asked you guy's a question and an answer was kind of the point of this thread.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/9/12 02:00 AM, Feoric wrote: Are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

Let me break it down for you guy's that don't want to read the whole original post

#1) Theft is illegal

#2) Theft is illegal therefore being that Taxation is theft Taxation is indeed illegal

#3) You don't own money the federal Reserve owns the money therefore the protections and rights that come with ownership such as protection from theft are rendered non existent for the fact that you never legally owned the money you earned to begin with

#4) So if you don't legally own money does than give the Government the rights to legally steal our futures from us by way of Taxation, Debt, Tariffs, fines, etc and to forfeit the money back to the vary source where debt is produced and the rightful owner which is "The Federal Reserve" ?

#5) What rights are earners of Federal Reserve Notes actually entitled to as the money is not owned by you or me it is owned by a Private company.

#6) We better start to demand to get paid in solid gold LOL

[SmilezRoyale]

Before I write anything let me say that I held the position you held about two years ago.

"Legitimacy" -- is whatever people believe to be legitimate. In some places in the middle east, forcing a woman to marry the man who raped her is not only seen as 'legitimate' but as proper. In the west, our views are somewhat different.

It is true that most everyone in society regards the essential features of taxation [threat of violence and imprisonment] as illegitimate

To make a biblical analogy. Most Christians regard god as being good, and they regard him as good despite the fact that it states that he killed nearly all of the humans and animals by a giant flood. Yet if a normal individual today were to try and kill a smaller number of people, say a small town, by flooding it [perhaps blowing up a dam or something] or by some other means, no Christian would call this person 'Good'.

This seems contradictory to someone who doesn't hold to a moral relativism where mortals and gods adhere to different morals than mortals.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/9/12 03:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Before I write anything let me say that I held the position you held about two years ago.

But you did not give anything solid as to why you changed your stance 2 years ago. All moral ethics are automatically thrown out the window IMO when living under a society ruled by the gun. That being said I personally choose to stand up and voice my opinion and uphold "Secular Ethics" as the one true model to live by IMO.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/9/12 03:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/9/12 03:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Before I write anything let me say that I held the position you held about two years ago.

But you did not give anything solid as to why you changed your stance 2 years ago. All moral ethics are automatically thrown out the window IMO when living under a society ruled by the gun. That being said I personally choose to stand up and voice my opinion and uphold "Secular Ethics" as the one true model to live by IMO.

I accidentally hit post before I finished my thought, but I didn't include that.

On ethics please read; http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-im-moral-non cognitivist.html

The view of the author is essentially mine.

I'll just add that there are plenty of people who uphold secular ethics, and most of them think that they think that they have a "right" to healthcare, and not care if you argue that making their notion of "right" a reality entails threats of kidnapping and execution.

___________________________________________________

Now I want to elaborate on what I meant in the previous post...

You can argue that the state violates inter-subjective criteria of legitimate ownership and use of property or everyone except the state, but this is essentially the definition of the state. The reason people permit the state to violate these intersubjective norms is because the hold to a variety of strange views of the state as an institution qualitatively superior to all others. Unfortunately this view enforces itself, as the governments ability to own property by decree [a product of people's beliefs of the state]

You can make people realize that there's a double standard between the state and regular citizens, but they will very likely do one of two things.

1. Acknowledge it as wrong but regard it as a lesser evil compared to the evil of the consequences associated with a failure to take other people's money by any means necessary.
2. Acknowledge the double standard but regard it as acceptable.

If the idea of option 2 seems unfathomable to you it's because you're not operating on the assumption that different people [notions of equality are almost always and everywhere false] can be permitted by society to do different things based on implicit or explicit notions of superiority.

Such 'different people' being permitted to do 'different things' can include;

1. Treating African Americans as second class citizens
2. Giving husbands guardianship over their wives
3. Allowing parents to physically discipline their children
4. Allowing people over a certain age threshold to drink, drive, smoke, or engage in sexual activities. [albeit not all at the same time :P ]

Just because person X is allowed by society to do A to person Y does not mean society will tolerate the reverse.

In western societies today, we GENERALLY hold to the idea that 'everyone is equal' and as such several cases where differences in acceptable behavior were prevalent, the were removed. As such Most western societies have eliminated 1-3. In cases where such differences are of practical necessity, [i.e. #4] they have been maintained and people pragmatically ignore the fact that these legal arrangements violate the central mythos of the 21st century.

Libertarians take the notion of moral equality to it's rational conclusion and so become market anarchists who oppose all forms of statism and difference of legal standing.

Cultural marxists take the notion of general equality to it's rational conclusion and so wage war on tradition, genetics, healthy sexual relationships, the family, etc, in the hopes of creating an individual free of all influences that might render them unequal in any way to anyone else for any reason what-so-ever.

Now in comparing these two I'm not saying that libertarians are as bad as cultural marxists. I still regard libertarians as generally a force for good, and cultural marxists a force for evil. [If we define good and evil in terms of the degree to which they allow civilization to flourish and crumble, respectively]

TLDR: In reality, throughout most of history, and still to this day, society countenances some people to do things that others cannot.

________________

THAT SAID! Just because such differences in acceptable behavior exist, does not mean that they are necessarily productive or not.

Take patriarchy for example. Male dominance and paternalism of women made sense in a world where;
1. Marriage for a woman occured at the same age when girls today enjoy the likes of Miley Cryus.
2. The economy was premodern and wealth was mostly acquired through hard physical labor.
3. Lake of contraception, effective abortion, and paternity tests made female promiscuity extremely dangerous for the woman.
4. Housework was a full time job [it still is but without modern appliances, house work is a 2X full time job] making any other kind of employment difficult.

In a world of condoms, washing machines, day care, and more intelligently based employment, what we call 'patriarchy' is unnecessary for women. Mind you all of these things that liberated women were invented by males.

In the case of what we might call "Statism" -- I do not believe that statist mentality has ever really been good for society. The justification for adults having power over their children is one of superior intelligence and wisdom which comes with age. The justification for Statism is that one class of adults is superior for some reason to another group.

In the past this justification had some quasi-logical basis, the head of state was some religious authority; God, Demigod, chosen by god, divinely sanctioned, etc.

But today the only valid justification for a state is "of, by, and for the people" Any other government is at risk of being decimated by the pentagon. But if our government is "of, by, and for" the people, how can it maintain this superiority?

Four years ago I abandoned my belief in the state, as I define it, as a "necessary" institution. The above paragraph being the central [but not single] reason for this.

Two years after that I gradually realized that normative claims are empty and meaningless and people who use them are either deliberately manipulating others, or have simply drunken their own koolaid; the latter being more likely.

However you don't actually need a notion of state superiority to invoke the need for a state. You *COULD* argue that society needs to delegate someone, anyone, the sole authority over a territory to enforce dictates in the case of public goods It doesn't matter if the state is less competent than other members of society, all that matters is that the laws are in place to compel funding for essential public goods.

I have arguments against this above view but mentioning them here is off topic and serves no purpose.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/9/12 04:53 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 11/9/12 03:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/9/12 03:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Before I write anything let me say that I held the position you held about two years ago.

But you did not give anything solid as to why you changed your stance 2 years ago. All moral ethics are automatically thrown out the window IMO when living under a society ruled by the gun. That being said I personally choose to stand up and voice my opinion and uphold "Secular Ethics" as the one true model to live by IMO.

You can make people realize that there's a double standard between the state and regular citizens, but they will very likely do one of two things.

All filler words aside lets sum it up herein that "Subjugation" is in fact 100% voluntary but whats the point of fooling ourselves that we can choose to be free from oppression when you are staring down the barrel of a gun the Gun and barrel representing the "State" the "Nation and the "Dictator" and finally the Gun representing the Police and Military that represent and uphold/enforce the previously denoted "Holy Trinity"under the guise of a "Peoples Republic". My overarching point is that we are not free as a people and we never have been and furthermore we are now "Economic Slaves" and if anybody does not think so then I challenge them to stop buying things and start to take care of themselves for once in there lives.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/9/12 05:32 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/9/12 04:53 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 11/9/12 03:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/9/12 03:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Before I write anything let me say that I held the position you held about two years ago.

But you did not give anything solid as to why you changed your stance 2 years ago. All moral ethics are automatically thrown out the window IMO when living under a society ruled by the gun. That being said I personally choose to stand up and voice my opinion and uphold "Secular Ethics" as the one true model to live by IMO.

You can make people realize that there's a double standard between the state and regular citizens, but they will very likely do one of two things.

All filler words aside lets sum it up herein that "Subjugation" is in fact 100% voluntary but whats the point of fooling ourselves that we can choose to be free from oppression when you are staring down the barrel of a gun the Gun and barrel representing the "State" the "Nation and the "Dictator" and finally the Gun representing the Police and Military that represent and uphold/enforce the previously denoted "Holy Trinity"under the guise of a "Peoples Republic". My overarching point is that we are not free as a people and we never have been and furthermore we are now "Economic Slaves" and if anybody does not think so then I challenge them to stop buying things and start to take care of themselves for once in there lives.

You need to step back and figure out the difference between observations [sometimes misleadingly called facts] and opinions. I am commenting on what I believe to be observationally true, not what I believe to be moral, or even good from the perspective of civilization.

These are some other points

1. I am not in approval of what the State does.
2. I do not believe that acts of state are voluntarily imposed on the citizens
3. I do not believe that convincing people that "Taxation is theft" [Which is mostly true, to explain why it's not 100 percent true would take a large paragraph, so i'll skip it] will actually get them to stop supporting taxation.
4, If your goal is to convince people to stop supporting taxation, telling them that taxation is theft will not on its own do anything.
5. While I do not believe acts of state are voluntary, the existence of the state itself has operationally universal support, I infer this from the fact that while individual laws are enforced violently upon citizens, the states own existence is a product of people believing in large enough numbers that the state is, at least, a necessary evil. They pay taxes to the state which allows said state to enforce laws which could not do so otherwise.
5. In a world of what we may call moral inequality, there is nothing unusual about people projecting some authority onto a group or individual that allows them to do what other people are not allowed to do. This is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of truth.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/9/12 06:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

These are some other points

1. I am not in approval of what the State does.

Very well

2. I do not believe that acts of state are voluntarily imposed on the citizens

Ok

3. I do not believe that convincing people that "Taxation is theft" [Which is mostly true, to explain why it's not 100 percent true would take a large paragraph, so i'll skip it] will actually get them to stop supporting taxation.

I clearly and truly do not agree with taxation however that being said I do not advocate for you or anyone else that is a Citizen of the US to avoid paying taxes as the nation and or state will send the goons after you and you will "Pay or stay" in prison to repay your illegitimately forced Taxation debt. I live in Canada and have not payed a penny to the income Tax Levy since 2006 but in Canada they do not imprison for "Tax evasion" so I am cool for now. I always ask the Government income tax branch "Revenue Canada" for an invoice for what I am being charged or illegitimately "Levied" for and I always get the same blank faced stupid assed hollow answer LOL.

4, If your goal is to convince people to stop supporting taxation, telling them that taxation is theft will not on its own do anything.

Read my above post which basically states that if you want to actively refuse to pay taxes you had better do it outside of US boarders unless you are OK with doing jail time.

5. In a world of what we may call moral inequality, there is nothing unusual about people projecting some authority onto a group or individual that allows them to do what other people are not allowed to do. This is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of truth.

Just because some time ago most people thought that thunder was the god's getting angry does not make it a fact just another commonly accepted "do to the apathy and lack of education the masses" fallacious belief of the time. "Subjugation" of certain groups of people around the world will one day be laughed at just like the thunder god story is laughed at today.

[poxpower]

At 11/9/12 03:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Before I write anything let me say that I held the position you held about two years ago.

It's a miracle!

I never understood how people could figure that taxation was unfair but being born a millionaire in a system where everyone else pays for your infrastructure and defense is.

Oh, enjoying political stability and other people's hard work and creativity are you? Sure would be a shame if you weren't allowed to hoard 100% of it, after all if you're a billionaire you earned every dollar! Even if you were born rich. Sure makes the word "earn" mean a lot.

OH PEOPLE. people people.

people.

haha. Leanlifter is crazy, I'm glad there's still crazy people around though.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/9/12 09:47 PM, poxpower wrote:

haha. Leanlifter is crazy, I'm glad there's still crazy people around though.

"To be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society is no measure of good health." Jacque Fresco

Some people are just to "conditioned/damaged/ostracized into NOT thinking" and working for themselves and they have very little willpower left to make positive change outside of the reality that has already been Mc created for them by way of the state, the nation, the government and the institution we live in called Americanized society. These previously denoted conditions is where the naysayers, trolls and upholders of the proverbial "status quo" are produced by design. If they and when I say they I mean the upholders of the status quo which include but not limited to the conditioned/damaged and the ostracized ever witness true freedom they will fear it and attack it and with good fucking reason as true freedom is HARD fucking work and the Americanized world is filled with a bunch of fat assed, lazy, social quadriplegics whom think they are entitled to way more than they were ever or will ever be worth. END RANT !

[poxpower]

At 11/9/12 10:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

"To be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society is no measure of good health." Jacque Fresco

Yeah all the crazy people say that.
In fact they don't let you into the union if you don't have a good 2-3 pages of quotes from famous people.

[Feoric]

At 11/9/12 10:45 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/12 10:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

"To be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society is no measure of good health." Jacque Fresco

Yeah all the crazy people say that.
In fact they don't let you into the union if you don't have a good 2-3 pages of quotes from famous people.

You have to have grossly misinterpreted the Founding Fathers, as well. Bonus points for quoting obscure French philosophers.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/9/12 09:47 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/12 03:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Before I write anything let me say that I held the position you held about two years ago.

It's a miracle!

Is it "wrong" for me to pour acid on your face?
Is it "wrong" for you to pour acid on my face?
Is it "wrong" for Barrack Obama to kill Pakistani children?

You see the problem is that my atheism runs so deep [thanks a lot Drakim] that I disregard these questions as having actual answers. I can tell you that I would feel guilty if I poured acid on your face, that I would prefer it if you didn't pour acid on my face, and I can tell you I get angry when I hear that the man who calls himself the president of the united states is spending tax payer dollars killing 50 pakistanis for every 1 so-called terrorist; I get angry at that, and at the same time I generally loath the Islamic religion.

Most people, including atheist-social-demokratz can't handle that red pill. They have their own spiritual fetishes; Democracy, Equality, Social Justice, "Rights", etc. God is dead but somehow we still managed to find the true holy spirit, the zeitgeist as I believe it is called by Richard Dawkins. These people took the distinctively christian notion that all souls are equal in gods eyes, and ran with it even after all talk of theology was abandoned. The destruction of western civilization will fall squarely on the shoulders of these people.

But as you may notice if you think really deeply about it, the only factual basis behind my feelings is that they are what they are. People who say that Abortion is wrong, or that a woman has a right to choose, are not saying anything about the real world, they're telling you what their feelings are. Morals aren't real and that was my first point to the OP. As such his talking of Taxation being theft, while factually true, is not going to convince people. [I'll get into that in your second sentence]

My position on statelessness hasn't changed. Barrack Obama, the Congress, SCOTUS, the bureaucracy, the military: these people are not holy or magical, they are either elected by or appointed by the people who are elected by the citizens who are supposedly weak and inferior and thus need paternal guidance.

Public goods are the main thing, and a decent debate on public goods can be had provided the arguments are in good faith and any skepticism is balanced. But really if you took a modern socialdemocracy eliminated all spending that wasn't clearly on a public good, the new government would be unrecognizable to what it had been.

I never understood how people could figure that taxation was unfair but being born a millionaire in a system where everyone else pays for your infrastructure and defense is.

Having debated you before I told the OP what response he could expect... copypasting from the above.

1. Acknowledge it as wrong but regard it as a lesser evil compared to the evil of the consequences associated with a failure to take other people's money by any means necessary.
2. Acknowledge the double standard but regard it as acceptable.

I don't think you, or really anyone, actually thinks that death and imprisonment is a "positive good" -- to use John C Calhoun's language, just that the results it yields are enough to justify the act. What sort of crazy person doesn't want roads, or education, or FEMA?

I think my assessment was correct, though I'm not sure whether you're going to agree.

But what I do know is you're better off starting with the economic theory first and moving to morals second. That moral segment doesn't involve putting forward some silly concoction of 'secular ethics' -- it's simply deconstructing 21st century progressive-universalist moralism. But economic theory for most people is a Gordian knot with no sword to cut it, any claim you make is contested because progressivism is a multilayered set of assumptions. Just as generic small-government libertarianism is.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/9/12 10:56 PM, Feoric wrote:

Bonus points for quoting obscure French philosophers.

Actually "Jacque Fresco" is a 96 year old all American man born in Brooklyn, New York 1916 and currently residing somewhere in Florida and he is not of French descent. Sorry but I can not take you bonus point.

[leanlifter1]

I guess the question I am trying to get at and maybe someone here knows the answer to is that what is the actual agreement and rights or EULA for lack of better word LOL to anyone that uses legal tender or Federal Reserve Notes as a means of currency ?

[poxpower]

At 11/9/12 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

stuff

I just mean it's a miracle you changed your mind while I was gone haha.
Well. WE'LL SEE.

You see the problem is that my atheism runs so deep [thanks a lot Drakim] that I disregard these questions as having actual answers.

Yeah pretty much.
People use words like "ethical", "wrong", "legal" etc. to try and tell others what they should do. Wow, something is LEGAL? Oh and it's IN THE CONSTITUTION? Shit! Sounds LEGIT.

The destruction of western civilization will fall squarely on the shoulders of these people.

Haha not really since they're also mainly the ones interested in science, conservation, education, facts, civil rights etc.

and thus need paternal guidance.

I think it's way more obvious that no one wants "running the country" as a job on top of their job. I don't need anyone to "guide" me, I just wish I could elect someone to manage the damn place without screwing up while the rest of us get shit done.

Most people feel exactly the same. Or they feel like OTHER people need guidance and thus they vote on stupid anti-drug bullshit. How many families value Republicans have been caught in drug / sex / gay sex scandals by now ? They whole life seems to revolve around telling OTHERS what they should do, while not doing those things themselves.

But what I do know is you're better off starting with the economic theory first and moving to morals second.

Yeah pretty much.

Most people would agree on the ultimate goal of society. Well most non-religious people. Which is why we should ban religion. And lobotomize more Christians. Yes. That is a good idea. Haha

[morefngdbs]

At 11/9/12 10:52 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/9/12 02:00 AM, Feoric wrote: Are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

No, he's just the only one that knows the 'truth'.

;;;;
Well if he's trying to show us he knows the truth , he needs to learn ...gold & silver are not "fiat" currency.

A fiat currency is anything that is not backed by anything AKA a "promise to pay" not a guarantee of payment or redeemable of an asset that will retain some value ...unlike the pretty piece of paper that the fiat currency is made up of !

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/10/12 07:27 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/12 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

stuff

I just mean it's a miracle you changed your mind while I was gone haha.
Well. WE'LL SEE.

You see the problem is that my atheism runs so deep [thanks a lot Drakim] that I disregard these questions as having actual answers.

Yeah pretty much.
People use words like "ethical", "wrong", "legal" etc. to try and tell others what they should do. Wow, something is LEGAL? Oh and it's IN THE CONSTITUTION? Shit! Sounds LEGIT.

The destruction of western civilization will fall squarely on the shoulders of these people.

Haha not really since they're also mainly the ones interested in science, conservation, education, facts, civil rights etc.

1. Conservation of what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnWmd8tqTTs
2. Christians are fine with science as long as it doesn't contradict the bible, the same is true of these people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY <--- Rushton was a Scientist, Suzuki was a fundamentalist. Whether or not either of them believed in a metaphysical god not withstanding.
3. See above
4. See above paragraph. The word "Right" just means "Ought", If I say "I have a right to free speech"-- It doesn't mean your attempts to sensor me will necessarily fail. It just means "I ought to have free speech".

I think it's way more obvious that no one wants "running the country" as a job on top of their job. I don't need anyone to "guide" me, I just wish I could elect someone to manage the damn place without screwing up while the rest of us get shit done.

Most people feel exactly the same.

Nothing to contradict here

But what I do know is you're better off starting with the economic theory first and moving to morals second.

Yeah pretty much.

[poxpower]

At 11/10/12 10:23 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

1. Conservation of what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnWmd8tqTTs

Resources I guess. Like those badass people who endangered species in Africa so hunters can shoot them. Awesome.

2. Christians are fine with science as long as it doesn't contradict the bible, the same is true of these people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY <--- Rushton was a Scientist, Suzuki was a fundamentalist. Whether or not either of them believed in a metaphysical god not withstanding.

Haha I already have seen that. This should be the "idiot test". If you side with Suzuki, you don't get to vote. You're removed from all debates and confined to the coal mine / telemarketing jobs.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/10/12 09:02 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/9/12 10:52 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/9/12 02:00 AM, Feoric wrote: Are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

No, he's just the only one that knows the 'truth'.

;;;;
Well if he's trying to show us he knows the truth , he needs to learn ...gold & silver are not "fiat" currency.

That was an error as of course I know Gold and Silver are not FIAT currency as they are not even currency however that being said the bogus "Paper" Gold and Silver you buy at the bank is FIAT as it is a derivative of the real physical thing.

A fiat currency is anything that is not backed by anything AKA a "promise to pay" not a guarantee of payment or redeemable of an asset that will retain some value ...unlike the pretty piece of paper that the fiat currency is made up of !

Your wrong as FIAT currency is backed up by the state, the nation, the government and especially the gun.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/10/12 07:27 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/12 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

stuff

I just mean it's a miracle you changed your mind while I was gone haha.
Well. WE'LL SEE.

You see the problem is that my atheism runs so deep [thanks a lot Drakim] that I disregard these questions as having actual answers.

Yeah pretty much.
People use words like "ethical", "wrong", "legal" etc. to try and tell others what they should do. Wow, something is LEGAL? Oh and it's IN THE CONSTITUTION? Shit! Sounds LEGIT.

The destruction of western civilization will fall squarely on the shoulders of these people.

Haha not really since they're also mainly the ones interested in science, conservation, education, facts, civil rights etc.

and thus need paternal guidance.

I think it's way more obvious that no one wants "running the country" as a job on top of their job. I don't need anyone to "guide" me, I just wish I could elect someone to manage the damn place without screwing up while the rest of us get shit done.

Most people feel exactly the same. Or they feel like OTHER people need guidance and thus they vote on stupid anti-drug bullshit. How many families value Republicans have been caught in drug / sex / gay sex scandals by now ? They whole life seems to revolve around telling OTHERS what they should do, while not doing those things themselves.

But what I do know is you're better off starting with the economic theory first and moving to morals second.

Yeah pretty much.

Yeah because clearly the US know hows to handle an economy NOT ! ask yourself is this morally sound before you do anything and you will be on track a promise.

Most people would agree on the ultimate goal of society. Well most non-religious people. Which is why we should ban religion. And lobotomize more Christians. Yes. That is a good idea. Haha

Great now if you can get back on topic the question I am after to get answered and point of this thread is. "I guess the question I am trying to get at and maybe someone here knows the answer to is that what is the actual agreement and rights or EULA for lack of better word LOL to anyone that uses legal tender or Federal Reserve Notes as a means of currency ?"

[leanlifter1]

At 11/10/12 09:02 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/9/12 10:52 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/9/12 02:00 AM, Feoric wrote: Are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

No, he's just the only one that knows the 'truth'.

;;;;
Well if he's trying to show us he knows the truth , he needs to learn ...gold & silver are not "fiat" currency.

A fiat currency is anything that is not backed by anything AKA a "promise to pay" not a guarantee of payment or redeemable of an asset that will retain some value ...unlike the pretty piece of paper that the fiat currency is made up of !

"These are the questions of this thread Is Taxation theft ?" and "The question I am trying to get at and maybe someone here knows the answer to is that what is the actual agreement and rights or EULA for lack of better word LOL to anyone that uses legal tender or Federal Reserve Notes as a means of currency ?"

[Ravariel]

At 11/9/12 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Is it "wrong" for me to pour acid on your face?

Depends on the context.

Is it "wrong" for you to pour acid on my face?

Depends on the context.

Is it "wrong" for Barrack Obama to kill Pakistani children?

Aaaand... well, you know. Context.

You see the problem is that my atheism runs so deep [thanks a lot Drakim] that I disregard these questions as having actual answers.

See, this is why, even when I disagree with you, I do enjoy reading your posts. You do understand, unlike most, that there is a wealth of context, nuance, and complexity underneath these hot-button issues we tend to argue about in strict black-and-white terms.

But beyond what you've already stated as issues that complicate this argument (especially about staism as a whole) there is something I think you've not yet learned to take into consideration: psychology. Specifically social psychology, and evolutionary influences.

This dichotomy you mentioned:

1. Acknowledge it as wrong but regard it as a lesser evil compared to the evil of the consequences associated with a failure to take other people's money by any means necessary.
2. Acknowledge the double standard but regard it as acceptable.

Is something that is a well-known psychological effect. People will often hold contradictory views of moral stances.

"Murder is wrong..."

"...except in self-defense."

"Stealing is wrong..."

"...but I cheer for Robin Hood."

"God is good..."

"...Dude, wtf." ~Abraham

Put that together with the evolutionary social structure literally bred into us over millenia, that looks to create society, create hierarchy, delegate responsibility, and use individual resources for the common good (the hunter who threw the killing spear was not the only one who got to eat that night, even if he may have been offered the choicest cuts)... and you have a species for whom governance, States, taxation, and all the bullshit attached, is inevitable.

The act of governance is a feature that will never be bred out of humanity. Would shit be better if things actually worked how anti-statists believe it should? Probably. Sports would be better without PEDs, cheating, point-shaving, boosters, etc, too... but people won't do it. Just like they can't hold internally-consistent moral beliefs.

There are always things that people are willing to compromise on in order to gain a similar result in an easier way. A purely economical mode of society and governance would be HARD. States, and Democracy is WAY easier (Dictatorships, even more so than that). So we compromise. We hold conflicting views. We have exceptions.

Even in the Stateless societies that I have heard you (and to a lesser extent Sadistic and his retarded brother leanlifter) posit would, in effect, replace elected governance/states with purchased ones. I think we may have done this dance before so we probably don't have to do it again, but I have trouble determining the difference between the two aside from some mechanical minutia. Regardless, that is likely a discussion for another time.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/10/12 06:58 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 11/9/12 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Is it "wrong" for me to pour acid on your face?

Depends on the context.

You see the problem is that my atheism runs so deep [thanks a lot Drakim] that I disregard these questions as having actual answers.

See, this is why, even when I disagree with you, I do enjoy reading your posts. You do understand, unlike most, that there is a wealth of context, nuance, and complexity underneath these hot-button issues we tend to argue about in strict black-and-white terms.

Danke.

But beyond what you've already stated as issues that complicate this argument (especially about staism as a whole) there is something I think you've not yet learned to take into consideration: psychology. Specifically social psychology, and evolutionary influences.

I know a bit about evolutionary psychology. But [I think] what I am getting at and when you are getting at are two different things.

What you are saying [correct me if incorrect] is that people's moral assessment of an issue changes when context is changed. Now when I was asking questions about throwing acid on people's face I wasn't trying to fool people, I just meant casually going up to someone and throwing acid on their face for no reason. [What we might call the trivial context] I was asking the question: What does it actually mean to say that something is "wrong"

What I am saying to the OP is that normative claims are not truth apt, and even people with simple minds partially recognize this when normative claims are restated in terms of the emotions of the speaker.

I don't think you're wrong, and certainly evolutionary psychology endows people to hold similar enough views on what actions are acceptable and which ones are not within certain contexts that you can have civilization [i.e. the cooperative enterprise of cities]

Is something that is a well-known psychological effect. People will often hold contradictory views of moral stances.

"Murder is wrong..."

"...except in self-defense."

My second point t the OP was that the indignation of what might be called moral double standards [The IRS versus a Mafia Boss] is historically recent Which is similar to your notion of context except when people say 'the context' of an action, they do not consider the person committing the action to be part of the context.

Put that together with the evolutionary social structure literally bred into us over millenia, that looks to create society, create hierarchy, delegate responsibility, and use individual resources for the common good (the hunter who threw the killing spear was not the only one who got to eat that night, even if he may have been offered the choicest cuts)... and you have a species for whom governance, States, taxation, and all the bullshit attached, is inevitable.

There will be delegations of authority always, but the existence of natural authority doesn't prove that all authority is warranted. Warranted authority meaning that the person's authority in X is some function of X.

So when we ask is, or rather, was, Steve Job's authority in Apple a function of his ability to act as a Brilliant CEO of the company? Most would say yes.

When we ask is the TSA's funding and power [In this case we can define power as the amount of stripping, rifling, and groping of "private property" the agency is permitted to engage in] a function of their ability

People's projection of authority on to the state has nothing to do with individual citizens pulling out a calculator and graph paper and figuring out whether program X has achieved some desired end at a reasonable cost. Rather it is derived from social proof, tradition, appeals to guilt, appeals to racial/religious/ethnic nationalism, and so on and so forth.

Or in other words, the state is a product of a glitch in our psychology.

The act of governance is a feature that will never be bred out of humanity.

I don't view anti-statism as a product of people behaving more decently towards one another. The vision is not utopian because it does not ask that people behave 'better'.

If people can stop believing in deities they can stop believing in "Good government"

There are always things that people are willing to compromise on in order to gain a similar result in an easier way. A purely economical mode of society and governance would be HARD. States, and Democracy is WAY easier (Dictatorships, even more so than that). So we compromise. We hold conflicting views. We have exceptions.

I'm not sure what is meant by easier except that it conforms more to the views that people hold, I could be misreading this.

I could likewise say that an islamic theocracy is easier in a situation where the majority of people are Muslim rather than liberal-secular. But is this a permanent feature of the human condition or not?

Even in the Stateless societies that I have heard you (and to a lesser extent Sadistic and his retarded brother leanlifter) posit would, in effect, replace elected governance/states with purchased ones. I think we may have done this dance before so we probably don't have to do it again, but I have trouble determining the difference between the two aside from some mechanical minutia. Regardless, that is likely a discussion for another time.

The TLDR Explanation is that all goods and services that are handled by the state, including the provision of law, are opened to competition. But putting it in these terms naturally strikes people as insane, in part because "Government" is viewed as something that must be one thing done by one entity.

Start by not thinking of "government" as a single thing: and it is worth pointing out that the institution known as state does things today that were not done in the past, and did things in the past that are [usually] not done today.

Instead look at government from the perspective of a mechanic or engineer. And ask the for each activity the state is engaged in [road building, defense, welfare]

1. What does the state claim it is trying to achieve by engaging in this activity
2. How does the state set about to achieve this end?
3. Is it possible that this activity could be provided more effectively?

But if we look at the vast number of things that, for example, USFG does, there are some cases where even people who are not crazy like me could come to wonder why one institution needs to do all of these things. So for example, why does the USFG need to have a monopoly on first class mail delivery? and what exactly does this have to do with why it operates, for example, nuclear missile silos. And why do we call both of these things "Government" If FedEx delivers packages why are they not also called "government"

Taking the things the state does and calling them government immediately makes any advocacy of 'buying' government instead of having it bought for you sound stupid. But treating "Government" as simply a mixed bag of goods and services that are monopolized by the state, begs the question "Why is the monopoly necessary"

There ARE strong arguments in favor of a monopoly for some of these things, and some not so strong arguments for others. But that's where you would need to begin.

[leanlifter1]

At 11/10/12 06:58 PM, Ravariel wrote:

"These are the questions of this thread Is Taxation theft ?" and "The question I am trying to get at and maybe someone here knows the answer to is that what is the actual agreement and rights or EULA for lack of better word LOL to anyone that uses legal tender or Federal Reserve Notes as a means of currency ?" If you can't answer these questions just simply admit it and move along and or start your own thread about pouring acid etc.