The government never gave me a choice as to what currency I can use. And no, it isn't. If it is entirely consensual, I should also have the power to have NO government imposed on me. We don't have a choice as to whether or not we should have a government. We cannot vote the government out of existence, so no, we don't have much choice. We're stuck with it. Your attempts to justify government are laughable, no offense; it isn't consensual and it is coercive. The government doesn't offer you choice in the first place. "The "majority rules" argument is based on the false premise that what just one of your neighbors would not have the right to do--appropriate your property using unjustified coercive force--society as a whole (who are just the aggregation of all your neighbors) somehow magically is morally justified in doing. Were this so, what principle would limit it just to taxes, or to just those things allowed by a Constitution? Where did society get the authority to use a Constitution to give its agent, the government, powers that none of the individuals in the society possess by themselves as single individuals? If your neighbor does not have the right to force you to be his slave, could it be that two of your neighbors have this right? If not two, then what about 1000 of your neighbors? 10,000 neighbors? 100,000 neighbors? 250,000,000 neighbors? Everyone living on the same continent?" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666806/posts
I think we theoretically can vote the government out of existence. It is just that with the media being unsympathetic to your view you would have a very hard task of persuading the majority to agree with you that the government should be voted out of existence. I also think the quote, "power abhors a vacuum" is accurate. If we ever did vote the government out of existence something would seize power. It might be organized crime that seizes power, or a foreign government, or a rich man turned dictator, the the head of the rich man's private police force might become the dictator. In chimpanzee society there is alway a dominant male or a dominant clique of males that loosely rule over society and take whatever they want. On they playgrounds of my youth there were always bullies who would have taken whatever they wanted had they not been afraid of the police. How do you propose to get around our chimpanzee/human nature if our DNA is not altruistic? I don't think the kind of freedom you dream of is possible unless humanity could somehow be transformed. The best we can is to keep on trying to perfect democracy and keep on trying to perfect economics and keep on trying to educate ourselves.
Private property solves the problems you are talking about, with another government replacing the first. Or the government could be maintained only for property and contract recognition.
This has already been addressed at length. It wouldn't matter if you started paying people in gold coins that you smelted yourself from gold that you dug up out of the ground yourself, or in chickens, or diamonds, or anything else; the government would still tax you (and demand that you pay the tax in US dollars). Edit: Heck, even exchanges of labor that don't even involve money are taxed. If you're a dentist who normally charges $100 to fill a cavity and I'm a carpenter, and we agree that I'll spend an hour doing repairs on your house house in exchange for you filling my cavity, for tax purposes that counts as me making $100 in wages and I will be legally obligated to pay tax on it. Are you going to argue that it's not really my labor now?
Again, this has already been addressed. You keep pointing out that it's theoretically possible to avoid paying taxes if you don't own things to engage in commerce, as if the fact that it's possible to avoid the theft somehow makes the theft ethical. If there's a thug hanging around on a street corner waiting to rob people who pass by, would you excuse his behavior by saying "Hey, you don't HAVE to walk down this street! No one is forcing you! If you don't want to get robbed, just go somewhere else!" No, or course not. Yet for some reason you use exactly that logic to excuse it when the government does it. Going down the street isn't consent to being robbed, just like owning property or engaging in commerce isn't consent to being robbed.
i'm surprised the federal reserve has not been brought into this argument. the money you and i have is not our money. it is the money loaned to us by a global banking system, in the US's case, the Federal Reserve Bank. think about how money is created. it's printed by the fed and loaned out to our banks and treasury at interest. funny thing is if you loan out $100 and have 10% interest, the money is available to pay back the principal, but where's the money to pay the interest? well for banks, they pay their interest by charging interest on their loans. the government pays the interest by taxing you and I and bonds. we pay our interest by working 40-60 hours a week. but if you run the numbers, what you will realize is that there is never enough money in the money supply to pay back both the principal and interest on the initial loan from the Fed. therefore there is always more money needed to pay back interest on the original loan. this means more loans are given out to pay back interest on the original loan. and that means more interest for the loans to pay back the interest on the original loans. as you can see, the scenario exponentially grows. hence you get inflation and an ever growing money supply. the problem we are seeing is that there has been a massive default on the principal on loans for huge purchase items such as homes, credit cards, commercial buildings, etc. our money system is a ponzi scheme and a moral problem. this debate about taxes seems to miss the bigger picture. taxes are but a leaf on a tree. if you want to get to the root of the problem research what money is and how it is created (watch Money Masters on Google Video). the global money system are the chains that keeps the masses enslaved. like dumb sheep, the masses are sold a paradigm that money can solve any problem within our societies, that there is such thing as easy credit, that printing money will get us out of this current crisis, and a host of other lies. the solution to our problems is not finger pointing, arguing over taxes to boost our egos, or printing more money. it is education, cultivating skills and resources for a more productive society, saving the money we get from our production, investing the money in ways that make our society more productive, living below our means, and a conscious life that recognizes it is the simplicities of life that create true peace of mind and happiness.
The Fed isn't really relevant. The issue is whether or not it's ethical for governments to forcibly take people's property without their consent. The tax laws apply the same regardless of what currency you're dealing with, or even if you aren't dealing with currency at all. Note that I have to say "forcibly take property without their consent" rather than "steal" to make people like joepistole happy, since apparently he doesn't consider them to mean the same thing.
Nasor, i wonder if that means if i was living in the US and stopped at a car crash to help treat the occupants, as that will be (for the purpose of this say it is) my "day job" would they try to tax that? If so then the US tax system really really sucksPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're from Australia, aren't you? You might want to check your own tax laws. I would be very surprised if you didn't have a tax on barter and exchange of services as well.
No what you fail to understand is that it is a choice to participate in our society or not. If you choose to partake of the benefits of our society, then there is a cost...a trade off. In fact the same trade-off exists in any industrial society. So if you do not like those trade-offs you need to find a place - third world country - where you are not handicapped by the demands of an industrial society.
Right. Just like you have a choice whether or not you walk down the street where I like to rob people. If you don't want me to rob you, then don't come down the street. If you choose to walk down my street, clearly you are consenting to being robbed, and it's moral for me to forcibly take your money. Edit: Here's a hint, joepistole. You need to explain the moral difference between a street thug forcibly taking someone's property without their consent and the government forcibly taking someone's property without their consent. So far the only difference that anyone has offered is that the government represents the will of the majority, as if it's okay for many thugs to get together and take your property when it's not okay for a single thug to do it.
i highly doubt it. It would go against the publics will because "you help me and i will give you a bottle of wine" or "you help me and i will help you" are sort of national values. Hell dad who is a computer programer used to go and fix and up grade a friends computer for him at part cost alone. Then when his house needed painting that friend who is a painter would do it (which is a good thing because dad SUCKS at painting)
I was curious, so I googled "Australia tax on barter services," and it appears that you are indeed obligated to pay taxes on exchanges of service. http://www.ato.gov.au/print.asp?doc=/content/35349.htm Of course, if you agree to do some work for someone in exchange for a bottle of wine, you simply won't report it to the tax authorities. Since they will never know about it, it will probably never be enforced. But according to the strict letter of the law in Australia, bartering goods or services does appear to be taxable.
All I can think of is Petoria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Peterbus_Unum Let the guy have his anarchist paradise, it wouldn't last long as anyone richer will kick his ass. It's basically just a more corrupt version of what already exists.
Taxes are not needed. The government does whatever the hell it wants, within their "budget" or not. The privatized "federal" reserve creates money from nothing at a whim, putting America trillions of dollars in debt, so obviously, taxes are merely a worthless drop in the bucket. Taxes as a form of federal funding is NOT necessary, but is only still used as the major form of slave control. You can't have too many Joe sixpacks making appropriate wages, because that would undermine the inappropriate wages of the rich mothers who would prefer to work less but get paid more. This reciprocal relationship of the poorer working harder and the richer working less is what keeps your perfect capitalism afloat. We are 21st century, modernized slaves. And the best part is- most of us don't even realize it.
The problem is taxes are not voluntary. And nobody can be forced to leave, that's pretty absurd. Not that they should. You can't say "well you wouldn't have roads and etc", because the government doesn't give us the option in the first place. Why not tax only the people that actually use the service? Oh wait, that's called a transaction then. The free market is best.
Yes it is. You can always vote out the government. Or, if you really don't like your government, you can move to some other country that suits you better. Live in a tax haven somewhere. Yes they do. You can always vote for the candidate that promises to lower your taxes - even a candidate who wants to abolish taxation if you want. Of course, government can't run without tax. That is already done in many countries. In Australia, where I live, we have a goods and services tax - a 10% tax on goods that you buy or services you use. So, if you choose to buy a bottle of beer, for example, you pay an extra 10% on its cost to the government. Don't want to pay tax? Solution: Stop drinking beer, or grow the hops and barley yourself and brew your own.
No, I meant voluntary on an individual basis. The "majority" doesn't have the right to violate the rights of the individual, any more than a majority can stop a gay couple from marrying. No, I mean: people have the option on whether or not they pay taxes. If they do, they get the right to use government services. If not, they have to pay out of their wallets. However, of course, for fairness the government must lift its monopoly on security and infrastructure. This is fair, however, because people who don't use public education, healthcare, etc don't have to pay for it. Then again, this is the same thing as a transaction, then, so you might as well just use business. Also I think it is absurd to say "stop drinking beer if you don't want to pay the tax" I should have a right to purchase it and not be robbed. It's kind of like saying "don't wanna be mugged? Stop walking down this street! If you do, you consent to be mugged" You should have a right to walk down the street and not be mugged.
