Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Re: Paying taxes doesn’t allow Atheists, nor any g roup , to dictate to others.

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
> > labor, is extended to the things. You have a
> > right to them simply because you have a right
> > to life.That is the moral basis of the right of
> > property. "I own it because I made it" is a
> > title that proves itself. The recognition of
> > that title is implied in the statement that
> > "Imakeso many dollars a week." That is literally true.
> > > But what do you mean when you say you own the
> > thing you produced? Say it is a bushel of
> > wheat. You produced it to satisfy your desire
> > for bread. You can grind the wheat into flour,
> > bake the loaf of bread, eat it, or share it
> > with your family or a friend. Or you can give
> > part of the wheat to the miller in payment for
> > his labor; the part you give him, in the form
> > of wages, is his because he gave you labor in
> > exchange. Or you sell half the bushel of wheat
> > for money, which you exchange for butter to go
> > with the bread. Or you put the money in the
> > bank so that you can have something else later on, when you want it.
> > > In other words, your ownership entitles you
> > to use your judgment as to what you will do
> > with the product of your labor consume it, give
> > it away, sell it, save it. Freedom of
> > disposition is the substance of property rights.
> > > Interference with this freedom of disposition
> > is, in the final analysis, interference with
> > your right to life. At least, that is your
> > reaction to such interference, for you describe
> > such interference with a word that expresses a
> > deep emotion: You call it "robbery." What's
> > more, if you find that this robbery persists,
> > if you are regularly deprived of the fruits of
> > your labor, you lose interest in laboring. The
> > only reason you work is to satisfy your
> > desires; and if experience shows that despite
> > your efforts your desires go unsatisfied, you
> > become stingy about laboring. You become a "poor" producer.
> > > Suppose the freedom of disposition is taken
> > away from you entirely. That is, you become a
> > slave; you have no right of property. Whatever
> > you produce is taken by somebody else; and
> > though a good part of it is returned to you, in
> > the way of sustenance, medical care, housing,
> > you cannot under the law dispose of your
> > output; if you try to, you become the legal
> > "robber." Your concern in production wanes and
> > you develop an attitude toward laboring that is
> > called a "slave" psychology. Your interest in
> > yourself also drops because you sense that
> > without the right of property you are not much
> > different from the other living things in the
> > barn. The clergyman may tell you you are a man,
> > with a soul; but you sense that without the
> > right of property you are somewhat less of a
> > man than the one who can dispose of your
> > production as he wills. If you are a human, how human are you?
> > > It is silly, then, to prate of human rights
> > being superior to property rights, because the
> > right of ownership is traceable to the right to
> > life, which is certainly inherent in the human
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
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