Opting Out Of The System

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I see that the depth of your argument is truly limitless, good sir. Really, this is the best you can manage?

Taxes are theft in the same way that sex is rape.

Please give us your definitions of theft an rape.

Theft is taking property that does not belong to you. Rape is unconsentual sex.

I've already explained why taxation is not theft previously. Have your helper monkey read it to you, if you're having difficulty doing so yourself.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Private forces will not be governing society people will. this shows your lack of understanding. privates forces will have no power or authority to impose thier will on society like current police do. They will only protect thier clients. Current entities will but cut out of it. The only incentive private police will have will be to protect thier clients just like they do now. Housing prisoners will no longer be profitable in extracting ever more from the tax base theft scheme. And people will not be forced to buy a product they don't need or want.

I said WEALTH will be the sole governing force

You want to take away Democracy which was born FROM OLIGARCHY and the tyrannical environment it created. Why do you think democracy was instituted in the first place?

You have money

You hire police

You get to direct that force

that force is not accountable to the public, it is accountable to you

Your Physical Force/Power is = to the amount of money you have to spend on that Force

Money buying power in a very real Physical sense is a good basis to control other people, not creating freedom

Oligarchy, Monarchy, tyranny

1.You can use the force to tyrannize people who cannot fund such a force

2.You can use that force to exterminate rivals

3.You can even use that force to create an environment that might sell your other products

Royalty used their PRIVATE wealth to establish a private system that was self serving, how do you think monarchies maintained power??? Do you think the nature of Money and Power has changed?

Mankind is compelled to control mankind - you want to give that power exclusively to those who can buy it

Only in the current system not in a private one. See above.

No - judges can invest in the prisons they service with prisoners, judges can use an intermediary to invest in the failures of other too, away from prying eyes and detection...

libertypundits.net...

More freedom will always facilitate more safety.

magical thinking

Placing a doorknob on an Airplane door does not create more safety, it creates more risk.

Seat belts reduce the risk of death by 44% as opposed to nothing, seat belts facilitate safety, not wearing a seatbelt facilitate vehicular ejection and death

You are in hot pursuit of the lowest common denominator aren't you...

People like you keep calling for more of the same. As if heavy regulation is the answer just don't have enough of it. Government is a monopoly on force and that force is for hire to the highest bidder. Mexico illustrates that better then the US. You are looking at the future of the US in Mexico if we continue on this path.

You mean democracy???

Mexico is way more FREE MARKET than we are here???
I can buy a hooker, some blow, a gun, a worker, gum and a taco on every other corner by unlicensed vendors
Mexico is allot more free in the way you desire,

do you also enjoy shooting your own foot?

Because in a free market the contestants will have a choice to choose from more then one judge and will choose the one that has the best reputation of being fair and just, corrupt judges will not be able to stay in business. Why is freedom of choice being the fairest method in all situations so hard to rap your mind around?

OK, I don't want to go to court at all,,, now what???

Frankly I think it is arrogant to thumb the nose at mankinds history and acquired wisdom, we came from lawless
roaming freedom, to Monarchy/Oligarchy, to rule of law and democracy. Legal foundation was born from the state you wish to regress too, no legal basis, no democracy, etc....

edit on 16-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Theft is taking property that does not belong to you. Rape is unconsentual sex.

Thank you and government taking property or money that does not belong to it without consent is also theft.

Oh and about your ridiculous rant on why it's ok for government to steal, it just got nuked by the simple definition of theft and rape that even you along with 7 year olds are smart enough to understand...

reply to post by Janky Red

OK, I don't want to go to court at all,,, now what??? Frankly I think it is arrogant to thumb the nose at mankinds history and acquired wisdom, we came from lawless roaming freedom, to Monarchy/Oligarchy, to rule of law and democracy. Legal foundation was born from the state you wish to regress too, no legal basis, no democracy, etc....

You should try actually studying history before making such foolish statements. Society existed long before government. One of the longest standing most sophisticated societies in history was a libertarian society with no police government or trappings of law we see todayl They had a completely private legal system that lasted 1000 years with maximum freedom.

www.libertarian.ie...
www.mises.org...
www.mises.org...

You really should quite buying the BS that nothing like this has never existed and it was all chaos until the rule of law was imposed by the sword and gun.

reply to post by hawkiye


Thieves don't like being reminded that they are thieves.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Thieves don't like being reminded that they are thieves.

By your definition you are thief too -

You use this internet which was heavily subsidized and the computer which was funded through direct subsidies, indirectly by students who received grants and/or government facilitated loans, in schools that were subsidized again, by government. Or how about the electrical grid that supplies power to your cpu and RAM???

You are complicit and your ideas are fantasy and corruptible

reply to post by Janky Red


Claiming I'm a thief because I am forced to use government monopolized products and services is ridiculous.

In order for the government to monopolize an industry, it must first wage violence or threaten violence against the private industry that was originally in the market.

For example, it is illegal for anyone to compete with the Post Office in first class mail delivery.

If someone does compete, they would be violently assaulted.

It is illegal for a private mint to issue its own currency.

If a private mint does issue its own currency, they would be violently assaulted.

Therefore we can conclude that the government wages violent warfare against its own citizens in order to FORCE them to fund the monopolies they deign to control.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Janky Red

 

You should try actually studying history before making such foolish statements. Society existed long before government.

That was my point - society evolled into what it is today, this is world is a result of countless generations worth of trail and error.

You and OP are COMPLETELY ignorant of the world we live in -

You tell me mate, in the 1200's did you have any 1 MAN who could buy the entire Emerald Isle???

Or how about weapons that could destroy the entire planet???

It is like the concept of Altruism on crack

One of the longest standing most sophisticated societies in history was a libertarian society with no police government or trappings of law we see todayl They had a completely private legal system that lasted 1000 years with maximum freedom

.

brehons who often were members of hereditary brehonic families and enjoyed a social and legal status just below that of the kings

So it is not private - it is Oligarchical in nature, birthright

But from the tenth century, the legal fiction arose that the lrish law was a unity and all contradictions were to be explained away by the commentaries. The
multiple and competing law systems of the early period were now subjected to homogenization to produce what was considered to be a uni- form law for the whole island.

Isn't that funny, that is the period when William the conqueror created unified law courts too.

Ever notice how things become in vogue at certain periods of time? Then society adopts the idea in mass;

Ahhhh

You really should quite buying the BS that nothing like this has never existed and it was all chaos until the rule of law was imposed by the sword and gun.

OK

I injure your car, you are the only witness and I do not want to go to court, or see a judge and I deny my actions to boot...


How do you get justice?

edit on 16-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Claiming I'm a thief because I am forced to use government monopolized products and services is ridiculous.

In order for the government to monopolize an industry, it must first wage violence or threaten violence against the private industry that was originally in the market.

The hole in your concept is ridiculous, I don't battle you for fun I will tell you

This government has not monopolized Computing and therein is your typical distortion of the intellectual concept at hand. There are 150 + governments, thousands of corporations, thousands of schools and hundreds of thousand of indivuals who own the Computing industry and its infastructure. What you do is intellectually lazy
because you proclaims the existence false dynamics and then you lay a false superstructure over that false foundation. You force everyone to battle with the violent ignorance of what is what in Mnemeth's world.
Each thread you reset and pretend that your ideas are valid, even if they have been thrown into question
two pages back,,, you press on.

For example, it is illegal for anyone to compete with the Post Office in first class mail delivery.

Parsing with definition, again itellectually lazy

I can get BETTER service than first class mail delivery here, by definition this is competition, this point is moot
unless you lay a specific foundation.

www.OnPointCourier.com...

www.a1express.com...

www.jetdelivery.com... dbSTAeA

It is illegal for a private mint to issue its own currency.

If a private mint does issue its own currency, they would be violently assaulted.

So change it... Find one challenge and see it through... Your shotgun approach of bemoaning does not change anything. In fact, it only illuminates the fact that you apply the same template to everything under the sun, this DOES NOT help your cause. You are quasi religious - you have lost the ability to see your ideas with any perspective.

Find one mission and change things, otherwise you are just a complainer who achieves nothing but high blood pressure

reply to post by Janky Red


Courier services are not first class mail, but nice try.

en.wikipedia.org...

Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has allowed an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.

"extremely urgent" are what courier services are used for.

If the Post Office thinks you are a threat to their mail monopoly, men with guns will shut your business down.

My goal is to end violence against the innocent, not to pick and chose which violence should be condoned.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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)

But more stuff requires the use of of more natural resources. You know? the ones we havn't figured out how to replace yet.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


The world is filled with all the natural resources man needs to live here forever.

The question is, what is the best way to manage those resources?

To have a violently funded corporately controlled government manage them or have them managed by private owners?

To me the answer is blatantly obvious, private stewardship of resources is a thousand times better than letting a gang of thieves manage them.

The problem with publicly owned resources is called "the tragedy of the commons" - which is an economic law that basically states if resources are open for anyone to grab, then those resources will be subject to hording and destruction.

It is only through private management that resources are conserved for future use.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Courier services are not first class mail, but nice try.

Bull!

I see you use a state defined designation to affirm your assertion

I AM FREE to circumvent the post office and use a courier for my mail if I please, prove me wrong.

Show me otherwise

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Courier services are not first class mail, but nice try.

Bull!

I see you use a state defined designation to affirm your assertion

I AM FREE to circumvent the post office and use a courier for my mail if I please, prove me wrong.

Show me otherwise

You're free to do so, as long as you don't try to co-opt the first class mail system.

For example, it would be illegal for you to open a mail service and then place first class letter mailboxes around a city next to the post office mail boxes.

Not only would you be violently assaulted personally, your property (the mail boxes) would be confiscated.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

It is only through private management that resources are conserved for future use.

Do you have a monocle and a family crest too?

The native cultures here were much better stewards of resources,

Private management in the Amazon has helped destroy the ecosystem there, the tribes who do not believe in private property took care of it fine for hundreds of generations thank you...

the why is most important -

Because it is cheaper for private profiteers to buy new land to ravage with the profits from the previously ravaged land. This simple economic equation does not change based upon the fulfillment of the book of Rand. Herein is where your idea falls flat into the abysmal logic hole. A billionaire will tell you that in some cases ownership
is a liability, a forest is only an asset when it is full of resources. An empty forest is a liability

Originally posted by mnemeth1
.....the businessman that earns it through voluntary transactions with his customers....

if all creation of wealth was met with a concomitant increase in value, i would agree with your rant.

however, this is simply not even close to what has happened in our economy for the past 100 years. the creation of money via the creative shuffling of numbers is a crime which is enabled and protected by law. because the legislators are protecting the ability to create money, they expect a return on that.

the creation of legitimate value in our economy is a small fraction of the total transactions.


but otherwise, good post. (have you read "the penalty is always death"?)

Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxTaxes are payment of debt. You are the beneficiary of a heavily structured and specialized society. This society only functions when there is a communal pool of wealth to draw from to bolster and repair where needed - that pool would be the state / national treasuries. When you drive, you are incurring a cost on your society. When you build, you are incurring a cost on society. When you use currency, you are incurring a cost on society. When you use your political or legal rights, you incur a cost on your society. These costs are paid for by taxes.

Taxation is to pay for the legitimate purposes of government national defense, infrastructure and such.

The federal government has no legitimate authority under the constitution to be involved in charity, education or a myriad of other things they have done over the years.

Simply stated when someone takes money from a person for the purpose of giving it to another by threat of force be that the point of a real gun or through the force of law - that is theft; plain and simple.

There is no consideration of the relative wealth of the person from whom the wealth is taken or to the relative need of the beneficiary.

If we only had today taxes for the legitimate purposes of government the bill would be a lot less cumbersome.

However, out "taxes" have become the medium of exchange between politicians and their influencers - they use our taxes to retain their power bases by paying off the special interest groups for favors. The more money they take and redistribute be that to corporations on the right or to unions and the legions of poor on the left the more assurances they have that they will remain in power.

Originally posted by tgidkp

Originally posted by mnemeth1
.....the businessman that earns it through voluntary transactions with his customers....

if all creation of wealth was met with a concomitant increase in value, i would agree with your rant.

however, this is simply not even close to what has happened in our economy for the past 100 years. the creation of money via the creative shuffling of numbers is a crime which is enabled and protected by law. because the legislators are protecting the ability to create money, they expect a return on that.

the creation of legitimate value in our economy is a small fraction of the total transactions.


but otherwise, good post. (have you read "the penalty is always death"?)

Question.

Has wealth disparity increased or decreased in proportion to the size of government?

What allows the banks to issue a fiat currency and get away with inflating the money supply?

Who gets the benefit of the new money created by the government first?

The government is the problem, not the solution.

In an anarchist society, no one would use fiat currency and the banks could not get away with printing money.

When people are free to chose, they chose gold.

reply to post by mnemeth1


i agree very much with your position. however, because you are dealing with idealized abstractions, it can be difficult to make realistic inferences to how things actually work. you seem to let yourself slide all over the map, idealizing one position and demonizing another. i am able to understand your argument, but i think the casual reader will be confused by your approach.

to answer your questions: people. people, not governments, are the root of the corruption. there is not some big ugly monster called "government" out there doing these awful things. it is people. and with all of your idealizations, i happen to think that if YOU were in THEIR position, you would be very tempted to do the same thing.

reply to post by tgidkp


There is nothing idealized or abstract about wanting a society that is free of looting thieves.

Idealized and abstract is what progressives want in a government:

They want to elect leaders who have total control over the economy and monetary system, yet who are perfectly benevolent and will not abuse their power. - Now THAT is idealized and abstract.

It is foolish to assume that a government which has absolute control over the monetary, banking, police, and court systems will not abuse their power.