Dear MJ: You get one vote, if there is ever a proposed controversial
bill to do away with all taxation. I will bet that you would lose.
But I admire your strength of conviction. But have you written a New
Constitution that accomplishes your objectives? Note: Your one or two
page outline comes up about fifty pages and twenty years shy of being
something workable that can be voted on, and passed, in a single day.
— John A. Armistead —
On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Taxation remains theft.
> Any infrastructure will be provided by the marketplace and paid for by those using said infrastructure.
> Do some research concerning the Militia AND also standing armies. Perhaps some light might be shed.
> Why am I suppose to accept theft (or rape) ... or seek some other place to live? Huh?
> Why not fund government by donation? If it is THAT important, the People will send their dollars in without hesitation.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government and all their robberies are legalized." -- Lysander SpoonerAt 08:14 AM 9/19/2012, you wrote:MJ: Most Americans, other than survivalists living off the land,
> realize that we must pay "something" for infrastructure and for the
> protection of our military. 10% value added tax should produce enough
> money to do the job, with no administrative IRS required. If you want
> total freedom from taxation, buy a desert island and don't move off.
> — J. A. A. —
> On Sep 18, 8:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Consent is illusory.
> > Taxes are theft.
> >
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> >
> > 640K ought to be enough for anybody. -- Bill Gates, 1981
> >
> > At 08:42 PM 9/14/2012, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >MJ: Constitutional government has no power without the consent of the
> > >governed. That means, within limits, that there can be no taxation
> > >without representation. Taxes TAKE property. And if such is without
> > >consent, doing so is a crime. The top 5% of the income makers are
> > >paying over half of the taxes. Some, such as the super-rich Hollywood
> > >stars, don't mind allowing government to take 95% of what they have.
> > >That way, they get to feel less guilty for being better-off than
> > >most. Know this: Under my "NC" there will be the requirement of
> > >having the approval of the taxpayers, if any amount of money beyond
> > >the "consensus" of the wealthy is taken. I would bet that such amount
> > >won't exceed 15%. Being allowed to protect one's hard-earned property
> > >and being allowed to pass such to chosen heirs and assigns is
> > >fundamental. Governments shall be deferential to the People; never
> > >again, the taskmasters of the People! — J. A. Armistead —
> >
> > >On Sep 13, 7:04 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > Source of RightsbyFrank ChodorovThe axiom of
> > > what is often called "individualism" is that
> > > every person has certain inalienable rights.
> > > For example, "individualism" holds that
> > > propertyas suchobviously has no rights; there
> > > is only the inherent right of a person to his honestly acquired property. . . .
> > > > The axiom of socialism is that the individual
> > > has no inherent rights. The privileges and
> > > prerogatives that the individual enjoys are
> > > grants from society, acting through its
> > > management committee, the government. That is
> > > the condition the individual must accept for
> > > the benefit of being a member of society.
> > > Hence, the socialists (including many who do
> > > not so name themselves) reject the statement of
> > > rights in the Declaration of Independence,
> > > calling it a fiction of the eighteenth century.
> > > > In support of his denial of natural rights,
> > > the socialist points out that there is no
> > > positive proof in favor of that doctrine. Where
> > > is the documentary evidence? Did God hand man a
> > > signed statement endowing him with the rights
> > > he claims for himself, but denies to the birds
> > > and beasts who also inhabit the earth? If in
> > > answer to these questions you bring in the soul
> > > idea, you are right back to where you were in
> > > the beginning: How can you prove that man has a soul?
> > > > Those who accept the axiom of natural rights
> > > are backed against the wall by that kind of
> > > reasoning, until they examine the opposite
> > > axiom, that all rights are grants or loans from
> > > government.Where did government get the rights
> > > which it dispenses?If it is said that its fund
> > > of rights is collected from individuals, as the
> > > condition for their membership in society, the
> > > question arises, where did the individual get
> > > the rights which he gave up? He cannot give up
> > > what he never had in the first place, which is what the socialist maintains.
> > > > What is this thing called government, which
> > > can grant and take away rights? There are all
> > > sorts of answers to that question, but all the
> > > answers will agree on one point, that
> > > government is a social instrument enjoying a monopoly of coercion.
> > > > The socialist says that the monopoly of
> > > coercion is vested in the government in order
> > > that it may bring about an ideal social and
> > > economic order; others say that the government
> > > must have a monopoly of coercion in order to
> > > prevent individuals from using coercion on one
> > > another. In short, the essential characteristic
> > > of government is power. If, then, we say that
> > > our rights stem from government, on a loan
> > > basis, we admit that whoever gets control of
> > > the power vested in government is the author of
> > > rights. And simply because he has the power to
> > > enforce his will. Thus,the basic axiom of
> > > socialism, in all its forms, is that might is right.
> > > > And that means that power is all there is to
> > > morality. If I am bigger and stronger than you
> > > and you have no way of defending yourself, then
> > > it is right if I thrash you; the fact that I
> > > did thrash you is proof that I had the right to
> > > do so. On the other hand, if you can intimidate
> > > me with a gun, then right returns to your side.
> > > All of which comes to mere nonsense. And a
> > > social order based on the socialistic axiom
> > > which makes the government the final judge of
> > > all morality is a nonsensical society. It is a
> > > society in which the highest value is the
> > > acquisition of power as exemplified in a Hitler
> > > or a Stalin and the fate of those who cannot
> > > acquire it is subservience as a condition of existence.
> > > > The senselessness of the socialistic axiom is
> > > shown by the fact that there would be no
> > > society, and therefore no government, if there
> > > were no individuals. The human being is the
> > > unit of all social institutions; without a man
> > > there cannot be a crowd. Hence, we are
> > > compelled to look to the individual to find an
> > > axiom on which to build a non-socialistic moral
> > > code. What does he tell us about himself?
> > > > In the first place, he tells us that above
> > > all things he wants to live. He tells us this
> > > even when he first comes into the world and
> > > lets out a yell. Because of that primordial
> > > desire, he maintains, he has a right to live.
> > > Certainly, nobody else can establish a valid
> > > claim to his life, and for that reason he
> > > traces his own title to an authority that
> > > transcends all men, to God. That title makes sense.
> > > > When the individual says he has a valid title
> > > to life, he means that all that is he, is his
> > > own: his body, his mind, his faculties. Maybe
> > > there is something else in life, such as a
> > > soul, but without going into that realm, he is
> > > willing to settle on what he knows about
> > > himself his consciousness. All that is "I" is
> > > "mine." That implies, of course, that all that
> > > is "you" is "yours" for, every "you" is an "I." Rights work both ways.
> > > > But, while just wanting to live gives the
> > > individual a title to life, it is an empty
> > > title unless he can acquire the things that
> > > make life liveable, beginning with food,
> > > raiment, and shelter. These things do not come
> > > to you because you want them; they come as the
> > > result of putting labor to raw materials. You
> > > have to give something of yourself your brawn
> > > or your brain to make the necessary things
> > > available. Even wild berries have to be picked
> > > before they can be eaten. But the energy you
> > > put out to make the necessary things is part of
> > > you; it is you.Therefore, when you cause these
> > > things to exist, your title to yourself, your
> > >...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment