It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Opting Out Of The System

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Lets say that a citizen calculated the cost of:

-his share of public road wear
-his share of police services
-his share of court services
-his share of prison services
-his share of fire services

and basically anything else that he is forced to use, and has no way of avoiding, because the private sector is forbidden from managing those necessary markets at gun point.

Would liberals demand the government wage violent warfare against this individual if he refused to pay taxes above the amount of services he personally used?

Of course they would, he might be Bill Gates, and therefore he might have deep pockets that the liberal thieves can steal from.

Could you imagine what might happen if citizens did not have a government approved weapon held to their head at all times?

According to liberals, the entire world would implode and Bill Gates would personally equip an army of mercenaries to violently pillage the inner-city ghettos like the Viking raiders of olde.

Slavery would return instantly and armed mercenaries operating under the banner of General Electric Corp. would construct industrial prisons where blacks were forced to mill cotton all day long for no pay.

Young mothers would be huddled in shanty towns as Halliburton employees collected their children for use in industrial labor camps.

Basically Max Max Beyond Thunderdome would arise as the world imploded into Armageddon, where armed biker gangs dueled each other in the streets for scraps of oil and metal.


Or not.

The fact that liberals would wage violent warfare against perfectly peaceful people simply because they want to keep their own property should be enlightening.

There is no way to opt out of the system, choosing to do so results in armed men violently assaulting you. Murray Rothbard called the government a "gang of thieves writ large" - nothing could be more accurate.






edit on 15-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I've heard and met people that have tried going that path and they get laughed outta court...Basically from what I've gathered when they started giving people social security numbers we became they're taxable property..and i heard a lot of talk about a united parcel code that somehow tied us into thier property but I'm not to clear on that1.......The DMV is nice enough to Let you give them a insanely high deposit depending on your state that would pay for all damages concievably possible in a accident.Which then they approve your vehicle without insurance to be on the road so you don't have to ever pay insurance...but In the long run unless you own extremely expensive cars it's cheaper to pay insurance..



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I'm excited to hear the cries of "SELFISH" or "GREEDY!" rise up from the masses in response to this post.

To head them off at the pass, I respond with:

Who is more greedy, the thief who doesn't want to work for his wealth, or the businessman that earns it through voluntary transactions with his customers?

Who is more selfish, the looter that would elect someone to rob his neighbor for a handout or the property owner that wishes to keep his own property?

Further, are you suggesting that being selfish and greedy is a crime that demands violent retribution?

If people are forced to donate to a "charity" that is operated by a bunch of mafia gangsters with guns, does this somehow cure them of their greed and selfishness?


edit on 15-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your perspective is interesting. I agree with you on many points, but I wonder if it is not the cozy business/government relationship that fuels taxes. You see it is not liberal or conservative ideals that push the government to forcibly tax the individual. It is the businesses that mandate increased profits year over year, and require roadways to conduct commerce and ship ports to sell their wares. The government though can provide all of these services to commerce by taxing the individual to ensure commerce occurs. Government taxes all of us to provide these public services. However, like you said, when we look at the actual benefit we the people gain from the amount of tax dollars that are poured into this commerce supporting infrastructure, we realize the average person has the least use of these infrastructures. While the infrastructure is there for us to use, and definitely makes life easier in the long run, our use of it in no way is representative of the amount of taxes we spend to maintain it. It is business that uses it mainly, to shuttle their employees to and from work, or move goods between cities.

I used to work for convention hotels. Day after day corporations would book meeting space to hold conventions. Trucks would unload freight for these conventions by the ton. Printing presses would be working full time to supply the material needed for the convention. Mountains of food and drinks would be order to accommodate the hungry convention participants. Hundreds of employees were needed to prepare and deliver the required elements of the convention contract. I wondered through it all at the absolute waste on resources business creates. The amount of fuel needed to get everyone to the event. The amount employees that had to work to supply all the needed materials. And I wondered, have we created a system that survives only by increasingly creating more work for us? A system that continually needs more workers, more infrastructure, and ultimately more taxes? And I thought to myself, yes that is exactly what we have created.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Businesses would not host a convention if the end result of that convention did not promote prosperity.

More stuff = more prosperity

The more stuff that exists, the cheaper stuff will be, and the easier it is to acquire that stuff becomes.

If there was a magic machine that could produce an automobile instantly like a Star Trek replicator - how expensive do you think automobiles would become?

Would the world be a better place if such a machine existed?

To hear a liberal talk, they would call such a machine an abomination! Think of all the people that would be put out of work if a car could be created for free instantly!

Of course, this logic is ridiculous. It is precisely because such magic inventions do not exist that we have system of property rights, money, and investment that promotes the building of "stuff."


edit on 15-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Governments have ended homesteading programs, the feds have taken millions of acres out west, Canada doesn't do homesteading any more and they're not going to let you escape without getting their fair share out of you. There's almost no where to go without leaving some kind of trace of your passing - I've got a "last resort" plan but I'm not going to go into that.

Sadly, the country/world that we live in isn't getting any better. My thoughts are that because of technology we are easier to track, be kept track of and if anyone wanted to kept in line.

You ask


Who is more greedy, the thief who doesn't want to work for his wealth, or the businessman that earns it through voluntary transactions with his customers?

Who is more selfish, the looter that would elect someone to rob his neighbor for a handout or the property owner that wishes to keep his own property?


To the first question, if we were to approach this from a philosophical point of view, both the thief and the businessman work equally as hard for their earnings. The thief has to prevent himself from being caught and the businessman has to work withing the confines of society and the law. Both are attempting to feed themselves and one assumes their families. Each one can be equally a thief.p. Edited to add: both are required to separate the owner of said property from it's owner for profit. However, in normal social situations, the businessman is the one in the right.

The second question supposes that the political system allows the election of socialists and that could never happen in the United Sta......never mind. The property owner that wishes to keep his own property, in my view, is always in the right. However, I am not a socialist, communist, liberal or progressive or a snot nosed brat that is used to everything falling out of the sky, who it appears are always more than happy to take your stuff for "fairness".

I wish I could send them all back to Jamestown for a few weeks and bring them back. That would change their tune.

I need another beer.
edit on 15-2-2011 by billxam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I agree..They broke thier own system by being to power hungry/greedy and pushing peoples basic human rights completely outta the picture forcing normally passive people to call for a change...I hope it's a non-violent conflict-resolution



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by billxam
 


The thief and the businessman do not work equally as hard.

If they did, there would be no thieves.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by billxam
 


The thief and the businessman do not work equally as hard.

If they did, there would be no thieves.



I don't agree.. I would tend to believe a well trained and prepared thief has worked extremely hard but to me its like comparing a scientist to a athlete...the two different types of work have no comparison cause both can be equally as draining



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArieZ

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by billxam
 


The thief and the businessman do not work equally as hard.

If they did, there would be no thieves.



I don't agree.. I would tend to believe a well trained and prepared thief has worked extremely hard but to me its like comparing a scientist to a athlete...the two different types of work have no comparison cause both can be equally as draining


Sure, but why not just spend that time building a business if the two take equal amounts of work?

Being a thief could potentially get you killed.

That's the point I am making.

It is precisely because being a thief takes less work that people engage in thieving. Without this, people wouldn't bother to do it.

edit on 15-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


More prosperity for who? Surely not for the average working person. Yes, I want a magical car manufacturing process, but there will never be one because the system needs more workers constantly. Scarcity makes wealth as you have mentioned. There has to be those without, for those with wealth to make more. I am all in favor of people using their ideas to create wealth for themselves and enjoying the prosperity it gives them. However, there is a line between making wealth to support themselves and making wealth that destroys the life of someone else. We are on the same page, arguing a different perspective---but, I largely agree without your overall opinion of government taxing the individual.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


For who?

For you.

Everything you buy comes from someone who spent time and energy to produce it.

The more stuff that gets built, the cheaper the stuff becomes.

The more government, the more expensive stuff becomes, because government wastes resources, it does not produce them.


edit on 15-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by billxam
To the first question, if we were to approach this from a philosophical point of view, both the thief and the businessman work equally as hard for their earnings. The thief has to prevent himself from being caught and the businessman has to work withing the confines of society and the law. Both are attempting to feed themselves and one assumes their families. Each one can be equally a thief


I believe in this context we're talking about a different kind of thief. Not the thief who steals cars and parts them out at chop shops, but rather the thief who sits on his couch all day long stuffing down Cheetos and collecting unemployment "benefits"; the funds for which were forcefully confiscated from people who are actually productive. This kind of thief has the state do his dirty work for him and, being dissociated from the violence employed by the state, feels little if any guilt about it.

But he is just as guilty as his proxies.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Every post from you is the same; a violent fantasy creation where the evil commie rapist liberal monsters with horns and pitchforks are out to kill and eat you because you're not a liberal. You need a better hobby.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Every post from you is the same; a violent fantasy creation where the evil commie rapist liberal monsters with horns and pitchforks are out to kill and eat you because you're not a liberal. You need a better hobby.


The truth doesn't change much.

Therefore my posts rarely change.

I also notice you have absolutely nothing constructive to add besides ad homs.


edit on 15-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
To hear a liberal talk, they would call such a machine an abomination! Think of all the people that would be put out of work if a car could be created for free instantly!


Too damn right. If I have to listen to one more rambling idiot complaining about the self-serve checkout at the supermarket taking peoples jobs away I'm going to plotz.

New Jersey keeps their ban on you and I pumping our own gas because it helps create jobs. It's like saying we need to round everyone up in a huge prison so we can hire a buttload of security positions. We're creating jobs!

How horrible of anyone to wish liberty. You might put some half-tard dropout out of a job.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
correct me if im wrong, but im pretty sure you can opt out of social security, its just a lot of paper work once your out, your out.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
New Jersey keeps their ban on you and I pumping our own gas because it helps create jobs.


hahaha

Progressing forward into the past.

I think we should ban people from using elevators on their own, this way we can have elevator doorman like in the old days.

Think of all the jobs we could create!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well, this is how government got so damn big. They create government jobs to fill the gap of unemployed workers in the private sector. It appears the government does things so inefficiently simply to make more jobs. And I might mention corporations use this as a bargaining chip to get tax breaks. They offer to bring in 200 jobs to a city for massive tax breaks or free land. Government simply bends over backwards to accommodate the businesses needs. However, when I go to the DMV to pay my portion of road taxes I get a rude clerk and a pat down by a security guard at the door. Government's priorities are backwards, in my opinion. They represent business interests not the individual.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The truth doesn't change much.

Therefore my posts rarely change.

I also notice you have absolutely nothing constructive to add besides ad homs.


edit on 15-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Dude. Your entire OP is based on the idea that liberals will try to kill you because you don't want to pay taxes. And you want to snivel about ad homs? Every subsequent post on this thread is just you adding more layers of evil and barbarity to a bunch of people you clearly have no clue about.


Would liberals demand the government wage violent warfare against this individual if he refused to pay taxes above the amount of services he personally used? Of course they would


The fact that liberals would wage violent warfare against perfectly peaceful people


To hear a liberal talk, they would call such a machine an abomination!


You have a very skewed vie of the world around you. Now, if you're curious about what a liberal actually thinks about something, maybe if you presented it without the whole "LIBERALS ARE EVIL BOOGA BOOGA!" nonsense, I could give you some answers.

Well, after I get back from work, that is. The hard work of taking your money and using it to feed somebody's abandoned grandmother never stops



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join