What you continue to miss is that you have 50%+1
deciding to VIOLATE the (natural) rights of at least 50%-1.
Taxation is theft. It is immoral. It is a
violation of every Individual's (natural) rights.
If an Individual were to perform the SAME action, he would be a thief.
"The fact is that government, like a highwayman,
says to a man: "Your money or your life." And
many, if not most, taxes are paid under the
compulsion of that threat. The government does
not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place,
spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a
pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his
pockets. But the robbery is none the less a
robbery on that account; and it is far more
dastardly and shameful." -- Lysander Spooner
If your Constitution EMBRACES such, then the
Government it creates is merely ANOTHER Gang.
Regard$,
--MJ
"The State is almost universally considered an
institution of social service. Some theorists
venerate the State as the apotheosis of society;
others regard it as an amiable, though often
inefficient, organization for achieving social
ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary
means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means
to be ranged against the "private sector" and
often winning in this competition of resources.
With the rise of democracy, the identification of
the State with society has been redoubled, until
it is common to hear sentiments expressed which
violate virtually every tenet of reason and
common sense such as, "we are the government."
The useful collective term "we" has enabled an
ideological camouflage to be thrown over the
reality of political life. If "we are the
government," then anything a government does to
an individual is not only just and untyrannical
but also "voluntary" on the part of the
individual concerned. If the government has
incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by
taxing one group for the benefit of another, this
reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we
owe it to ourselves"; if the government
conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for
dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to
himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has
occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered
by the Nazi government were not murdered;
instead, they must have "committed suicide,"
since they were the government (which was
democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything
the government did to them was voluntary on their
part. One would not think it necessary to belabor
this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the
people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
"We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not
the government; the government is not "us." The
government does not in any accurate sense
"represent" the majority of the people.[1] But,
even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people
decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this
would still be murder and would not be voluntary
suicide on the part of the slaughtered
minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no
irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one
another," must be permitted to obscure this basic
fact." -- Murray Rothbard, The Anatomy of the State
[1] We cannot, in this chapter, develop the many
problems and fallacies of "democracy." Suffice it
to say here that an individual's true agent or
"representative" is always subject to that
individual's orders, can be dismissed at any time
and cannot act contrary to the interests or
wishes of his principal. Clearly, the
"representative" in a democracy can never fulfill
such agency functions, the only ones consonant with a libertarian society.
[2] Social democrats often retort that
democracy majority choice of rulers logically
implies that the majority must leave certain
freedoms to the minority, for the minority might
one day become the majority. Apart from other
flaws, this argument obviously does not hold
where the minority cannot become the majority,
for example, when the minority is of a different
racial or ethnic group from the majority.
At 06:35 PM 9/19/2012, you wrote:
>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.
--
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