Human Farming....

[Simon W. Moon]

It depends on how it is done, but to the most part, yes, taxes are violent. When the government takes your money against your will or compels you to pay them or face punishment that is violence.

Is there a line between Humpty-Dumptiness and equivocation?
If so, I think your post is near that line. But not sure exactly which side of it.

 

[Arbo]

It depends on how it is done, but to the most part, yes, taxes are violent. When the government takes your money against your will or compels you to pay them or face punishment that is violence.

The sheep do not listen. They know only what they have been told.

 

[Henrin]

Is there a line between Humpty-Dumptiness and equivocation?
If so, I think your post is near that line. But not sure exactly which side of it.

There is very little difference between the highwayman and the government in how they approach acquiring what they need/want. One difference being is that highwayman will kill you if you don't pay him, while the government will throw you in prison if you don't comply. The difference of course being that one takes your life, and the other takes your liberty. Outside of that the only real distinction to be made is that the government will try to convince the people that they need to take from you by force to fund their everyday affairs. Of course, there is no truth to this argument, and there is no real justification to be made for the government robbing from its citizens.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

There is very little difference between the highwayman and the government in how they approach acquiring what they need/want. One difference being is that highwayman will kill you if you don't pay him, while the government will throw you in prison if you don't comply. The difference of course being that one takes your life, and the other takes your liberty. Outside of that the only real distinction to be made is that the government will try to convince the people that they need to take from you by force to fund their everyday affairs. Of course, there is no truth to this argument, and there is no real justification to be made for the government robbing from its citizens.

One difference that you may have forgotten is that the govt provides services in exchange for taxes, whereas the highway man does not. Imho, that's one of the significant differences. Ymmv.

for general edification of any who are interested:

"social contract" "John Locke"

 

[Ikari]

 

[Papa bull]

One difference that you may have forgotten is that the govt provides services in exchange for taxes, whereas the highway man does not. Imho, that's one of the significant differences. Ymmv.

for general edification of any who are interested:

"social contract" "John Locke"

I agree. They're a lot more like the Mafia going around collecting their protection money for their "services". I do support national defense but that's just a small part of our spending (and taxing) these days.

 

[Henrin]

One difference that you may have forgotten is that the govt provides services in exchange for taxes, whereas the highway man does not. Imho, that's one of the significant differences. Ymmv.

So basically the highwayman takes your money and runs and the government takes your money and then turns around to spend it on services for you. You know, because I couldn't have done that. I needed someone else to spend my money and buy services because I'm so goddamn inept. Hell, I'm so goddamn inept I needed the government to rob me to do this. Damn, I'm pretty inept at spending my money as you can see. Thanks government for taking my property against my will and then spending it for me. Because, you know, I'm inept and all.

for general edification of any who are interested:

"social contract" "John Locke"

So please point to the part where John Locke talks of involuntary taxation.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I agree. They're a lot more like the Mafia going around collecting their protection money for their "services". I do support national defense but that's just a small part of our spending (and taxing) these days.

THE THING ABOUT THE "THEY"...

Them is We

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You know, because I couldn't have done that. I needed someone else to spend my money and buy services because I'm so goddamn inept. Hell, I'm so goddamn inept I needed the government to rob me to do this.

How is your interstate highway system coming? The one that allows us to easily move goods from coast to coast quickly and efficiently?
Do you have that built yet?

What about your system of courts that allow businesses to enact and enforce contracts between parties?
Where are ya on that?

What about your armed forces to protect the nation from foreign powers?
What the ETA on that project of yours?

There's quite a long-ass list of things which we cannot do alone. So we band together to get these things done.

So please point to the part where John Locke talks of involuntary taxation.

And if I do? Then what?

 

[Arbo]

I agree. They're a lot more like the Mafia going around collecting their protection money for their "services". I do support national defense but that's just a small part of our spending (and taxing) these days.

Indeed, most of what government 'takes' for, it doesn't have the authority to be involved in.

 

[Henrin]

How is your interstate highway system coming? The one that allows us to easily move goods from coast to coast quickly and efficiently?
Do you have that built yet?

What about your system of courts that allow businesses to enact and enforce contracts between parties?
Where are ya on that?

What about your armed forces to protect the nation from foreign powers?
What the ETA on that project of yours?

There's quite a long-ass list of things which we cannot do alone. So we band together to get these things done.

Besides the fact that we don't need government to provide us roads I don't see how any of your list calls for the government to "take" what it needs from the people. If another party stole from you and then later provided you services would you say thank you or would you be pissed off that they stole from you? Btw, I don't think you understand the concept of buying services. That doesn't mean I'm providing the services, but that I'm buying the services.

And if I do? Then what?

I won't care, but I don't think you will find it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Besides the fact that we don't need government to provide us roads I don't see how any of your list calls for the government to "take" what it needs from the people. If another party stole from you and then later provided you services would you say thank you or would you be pissed off that they stole from you? Btw, I don't think you understand the concept of buying services. That doesn't mean I'm providing the services, but that I'm buying the services.

The point being that taxation is actually different than theft. To call the two the same is some variation of equivocation.
Not that you care.

I won't care, but I don't think you will find it.

Then I shall not bother to point it out to you.

I am curious if you think that Locke only wrote about an idealized world where there was 100% agreement among the populous of a country.

 

[Henrin]

The point being that taxation is actually different than theft. To call the two the same is some variation of equivocation.
Not that you care.

If the government takes my property from me without my consent that is theft of property. It makes absolutely no difference what they do with my property after that point. I don't care who does the theft or why they did it, it's still theft. I will not respect a thief just because he buys me things with my money. He is a thief and he violated my property rights. He deserves no respect.

Then I shall not bother to point it out to you.

I am curious if you think that Locke only wrote about an idealized world where there was 100% agreement among the populous of a country.

He didn't write of an idealized world at all.

 

[Verax]

Or... The story of your enslavement....
Thoughts?

These are very old ideas that have been around forever. If I were an ignorant teenager I might think this is a solid representation of the grand scheme of how this world works.

This video is bad. Its a clumsy drunk bull in a china shop. It teaches everything from an extreme polemic viewpoint.

It is very obviously Libertarian-Right biased. Democrats are the oppressors, taxes are evil... dependent sheep... yadda yadda yadda. I've heard this before a million times and from much better sources than this.

If you find this video educational its an indication you are quite wet behind the ears and haven't researched much about the world, especially not from multiple perspectives.

 

[Arbo]

It is very obviously Libertarian-Right biased. Democrats are the oppressors,

That you come at it from a biased view tells me your review is meaningless.

 

[Verax]

That you come at it from a biased view tells me your review is meaningless.

What is my bias? That it oversimplifies complex issues into "you're being farmed", "you're a slave". Well that's an extreme view now isn't it? Obviously there is some truth to everything but that video is more blunder than anything.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If the government takes my property from me without my consent that is theft of property. It makes absolutely no difference what they do with my property after that point. I don't care who does the theft or why they did it, it's still theft. I will not respect a thief just because he buys me things with my money. He is a thief and he violated my property rights. He deserves no respect.

What is your term for someone who enjoys benefits w/o contributing?

He didn't write of an idealized world at all.

Then why would you assume that the issue of taxation never came up?

 

[Henrin]

What is your term for someone who enjoys benefits w/o contributing?

Why should I care to answer this question?

Then why would you assume that the issue of taxation never came up?

I assume nothing of the sort. Should I quote the section you're referring to or should you? Chapter XI Section....

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why should I care to answer this question?

It was rhetorical. But if you would like to answer it, you may. But the point was made in the asking.

I assume nothing of the sort. Should I quote the section you're referring to or should you? Chapter XI Section....

I am not actually referring to any section.
I just find it curious that you would assume that there was no discussion of ( dissent / rights of the minority ) in re ( taxation / obligations to the state ).

Feel free to quote w/e you find relevant.

 

[spud_meister]

The sheep do not listen. They know only what they have been told.

Yeah, we should listen to Youtube videos instead!

 

[spud_meister]

Or... The story of your enslavement....



Thoughts?

Ok, good. I'm being exploited by generic, vaguely defined "farmers". Now what? What's the solution to this massive, history-spanning problem?

 

[Henrin]

It was rhetorical. But if you would like to answer it, you may. But the point was made in the asking.

The only thing I'm interested in is a system where consent of the taxes is necessary for taxation to occur. This does not imply electing officials, or whatever the majority says, or taxes on property or income or even sales, but a system much like the lottery where the people have to take part in a service designed for the tax to be levied. I see no reason the government should be allowed to attach taxes to whatever the people decide to do, be that earn money, buy property, or buy something in the market. When I buy a home I consent to paying for the home and not having to pay property taxes while I own it, when I earn money I consent to receiving an income, and when I buy something at the store I consent to doing business with that store. At no point did I consent to do business with the government in any of these arrangements, and yet the government puts their charge on all of them anyway.

I am not actually referring to any section.
I just find it curious that you would assume that there was no discussion of ( dissent / rights of the minority ) in re ( taxation / obligations to the state ).

Feel free to quote w/e you find relevant.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 11

The section you need for your argument is in section 140. I don't happen to agree that consent is gained by voting for representatives and I surely do not support whatever the majority says. At the very least if the majority votes for a tax hike and we are using our current system they should be the only ones affected since they were the only ones that agreed to have their property taken.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

BTW, humans taste like pork, not chicken.

He is absolutely right about that and I've found that recipes that work for pork are good for people too.

 

[specklebang]

He is absolutely right about that and I've found that recipes that work for pork are good for people too.

We must exchange recipes. The Angry Old Guy's guide to human dining

 

[AngryOldGuy]

I'm trying out a new 'veal' recipe I will e-mail it to ya