Taxation is nothing more than theft

[Le Marteau]

Yes or no? Say I live in an apartment, and everyone else there decides to take 50% of my income from that month. They say I have to pay them or else I have to move. Is that theft?

That seems to me like the best analogy for taxation.

Whether the government takes the money out of your paycheck in percentages, or you just drop a lump sum to some company, you'd still be paying for healthcare, or education, or the roads, or whatever it is.

The difference, however, is lost on you, so I'll try to help. You're to arrogant to see it, but you're NOT actually smarter than the accumulated brain-trust of thousands of people with years of experience in making life work (also called "government" sometimes). You let them handle it, because they know how to better than you do. It is the height of arrogance to believe you could make all the right choices in life (while still not obstructing other peoples', cos that's called being a criminal) better than an organisation that has been around since the Agricultural Revolution 15,000 years ago.

So, just stop.

 

[Harshaw]

Whether the government takes the money out of your paycheck in percentages, or you just drop a lump sum to some company, you'd still be paying for healthcare, or education, or the roads, or whatever it is.

The difference, however, is lost on you, so I'll try to help. You're to arrogant to see it, but you're NOT actually smarter than the accumulated brain-trust of thousands of people with years of experience in making life work (also called "government" sometimes). You let them handle it, because they know how to better than you do. It is the height of arrogance to believe you could make all the right choices in life (while still not obstructing other peoples', cos that's called being a criminal) better than an organisation that has been around since the Agricultural Revolution 15,000 years ago.

So, just stop.

Spoken like a happy slave to the state. Well, I guess if you think they know how to run your life better than you do, it really is better for you that way.

Unless you exempt yourself from your own words, which would be about par for the course.

 

[Le Marteau]

Spoken like a happy slave to the state. Well, I guess if you think they know how to run your life better than you do, it really is better for you that way.

Unless you exempt yourself from your own words, which would be about par for the course.

Of course I don't exempt myself from my own words -- I am very happy to give my money to Britain (or France, when I'm in France. I'm generally between homes, I own a home in France as well), because Britain gives back to me.

As far as being a slave to my state, I'd say that I have no restrictions on my freedoms. But I do have a wonderful range of helpful services that I've payed for with my taxes. When I'm in France, due to my tax-paying, I can get the best healthcare on Earth. I can send my son to schools in one of the most effective education systems on Earth. When I drive, I don't hit potholes -- know why? Cos the government maintains the roads. My electricity doesn't often go out but to the worst of atmospheric conditions -- and when it does, due to a storm, it's promptly turned back on to my entire neighbourhood.

Strangely enough, even with all these wonderful big-government services I've payed for through my taxes, I've never got the GIGN knocking on my door in the middle of the night because I made a joke about Sarkozy. I've never been harassed by a policeman for my money 'cos he was hard up for some cash. It's strange, with all this talk of police-state this, police-state that, it seems like all the boring old police here do is catch criminals.

 

[TurtleDude]

Aesop spoke of a fox who had lost his tail to a trap or a hunter. that fox spent the rest of his life trying to convince all the other foxes to cut off their tails so he wouldn't stand out as a loser. Misery craves company was the lesson of the fable.

castrated subjects spend alot of time telling free men that being wards of the state is "good" and when the free men object, the castratis do everything possible to emasculate them with the power of the state

 

[Ahlevah]

As individuals, we can't simply make up our "absolute rights", our absolute rights are defined and determined by society, and hopefully society will make those determinations according to what is best for society. I don't know that any of us have any "absolute rights" to anything.

I believe in the "natural law" theory of rights as articulated by people such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson and written into the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. From a philosophical standpoint of defining the nature of rights, I think there's value in stating that rights are not granted by man and are, in fact, incapable of being "alienated." At one time we had slavery in this country, defining a basic right of liberty in such a way that it didn't apply to blacks. Government should never be viewed as a "grantor" of rights, or left to define them. I think of government more as a trustee or administrator of rights I already possess, a job it assumes only as long as society consents to it.

Jefferson makes his belief clear that there is no natural right to inherit property. Property is bequeathed only under the laws and customs of society:

I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals.

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Letters: THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE LIVING

If one says that a person has a natural right to bequeath property, then a creditor has a natural right to go to his heirs and collect on a debt their benefactor incurred before he died and his crops failed. One can't have it both ways, with a right to bequeath and inherit property but no obligation to pay back a debt. But if, by chance, our imaginary person was so successful that he took possession of and consumed all of the resources on the planet when he created his empire, then what about the other people who came along after he died who never had a chance to grow or mine anything? Do they also have some right to the fruit of the Earth?

 

[Le Marteau]

Aesop spoke of a fox who had lost his tail to a trap or a hunter. that fox spent the rest of his life trying to convince all the other foxes to cut off their tails so he wouldn't stand out as a loser. Misery craves company was the lesson of the fable.

castrated subjects spend alot of time telling free men that being wards of the state is "good" and when the free men object, the castratis do everything possible to emasculate them with the power of the state

You're essentiallly arguing that I, and the entirety of the EU, and all of the statistics, polls, interviews, studies and inquiries, and the UN, and the International Monetary Fund, and the US government, and the CIA, are ALL just lying to you to get you to believe something untrue, because we're too embarrassed to admit we're mindless slaves to the state.

That's denial, mon ami.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're essentiallly arguing that I, and the entirety of the EU, and all of the statistics, polls, interviews, studies and inquiries, and the UN, and the International Monetary Fund, and the US government, and the CIA, are ALL just lying to you to get you to believe something untrue, because we're too embarrassed to admit we're mindless slaves to the state.

That's denial, mon ami.

NO, what I am arguing is that wards of the state spend hours trying to convince others to become equally dependent

 

[FederalRepublic]

You're to arrogant to see it, but you're NOT actually smarter than the accumulated brain-trust of thousands of people with years of experience in making life work (also called "government" sometimes). You let them handle it, because they know how to better than you do. It is the height of arrogance to believe you could make all the right choices in life (while still not obstructing other peoples', cos that's called being a criminal) better than an organisation that has been around since the Agricultural Revolution 15,000 years ago.

Obama couldn't have explained his thought process any better. Thanks for summing it up for us. eace

 

[TurtleDude]

Obama couldn't have explained his thought process any better. Thanks for summing it up for us. eace

many slaves liked their position of servitude. when someone has the symbol of communism as their avatar you pretty much know they are a willing brick in the wall

 

[Harshaw]

Of course I don't exempt myself from my own words -- I am very happy to give my money to Britain (or France, when I'm in France. I'm generally between homes, I own a home in France as well), because Britain gives back to me.

As far as being a slave to my state, I'd say that I have no restrictions on my freedoms. But I do have a wonderful range of helpful services that I've payed for with my taxes. When I'm in France, due to my tax-paying, I can get the best healthcare on Earth. I can send my son to schools in one of the most effective education systems on Earth. When I drive, I don't hit potholes -- know why? Cos the government maintains the roads. My electricity doesn't often go out but to the worst of atmospheric conditions -- and when it does, due to a storm, it's promptly turned back on to my entire neighbourhood.

Strangely enough, even with all these wonderful big-government services I've payed for through my taxes, I've never got the GIGN knocking on my door in the middle of the night because I made a joke about Sarkozy. I've never been harassed by a policeman for my money 'cos he was hard up for some cash. It's strange, with all this talk of police-state this, police-state that, it seems like all the boring old police here do is catch criminals.

Why would they possibly need to kick in your door? You're happily subservient. Any restriction they place on you, you're pleased to oblige.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why would they possibly need to kick in your door? You're happily subservient. Any restriction they place on you, you're pleased to oblige.

He loves big brother

 

[Le Marteau]

Why would they possibly need to kick in your door? You're happily subservient. Any restriction they place on you, you're pleased to oblige.

The point is, they haven't placed any restrictions on me. It goes both ways -- they don't need to place any restrictions on my freedom, and I don't need to seek greater freedoms, because I have them all already.

Pray tell, my friend, what freedoms am I lacking here in France? Or in Britain? Name me one, that your glorious nation affords to its people, that the People's Police State of France does not.

 

[TurtleDude]

The point is, they haven't placed any restrictions on me. It goes both ways -- they don't need to place any restrictions on my freedom, and I don't need to seek greater freedoms, because I have them all already.

Pray tell, my friend, what freedoms am I lacking here in France? Or in Britain? Name me one, that your glorious nation affords to its people, that the People's Police State of France does not.

I just got back from the range shooting glock, Heckler and Koch and Smith and Wesson handguns. You cannot even own any of those things in Britain because your government doesn't trust you to own them

 

[MKULTRABOY]

I just got back from the range shooting glock, Heckler and Koch and Smith and Wesson handguns. You cannot even own any of those things in Britain because your government doesn't trust you to own them

Yes you're quite likely to kill yourself or a family member with one, whether by accident or on purpose.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes you're quite likely to kill yourself or a family member with one, whether by accident or on purpose.

what stupidity--where are you getting your information-sarah Brady? I cannot help it if you project your timidity and lack of competence with weapons on to others

 

[Moot]

I just got back from the range shooting glock, Heckler and Koch and Smith and Wesson handguns. You cannot even own any of those things in Britain because your government doesn't trust you to own them

Our government trusts that people with firearms will kill themselves and/or each other. It seems to be working, but it is taking a toll on the health care system.

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)
FIREARMS TUTORIAL
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

 

[MKULTRABOY]

what stupidity--where are you getting your information-sarah Brady? I cannot help it if you project your timidity and lack of competence with weapons on to others

Oh, I've shot M-4s, AKs the whole lot of any good weapon. We have a few handguns and shotguns in my house. Im just reiterating what my british friends told me their attitudes were towards guns way back when. And you have yet to disprove what could be a valid point. :shrug:

 

[TurtleDude]

Our government trusts that people with firearms will kill themselves and/or each other. It seems to be working, but it is taking a toll on the health care system.

what stupidity-most gun deaths that are not suicides are from those involved in the drug trade. areas where honest people cannot own guns have the highest rates of gun deaths. gun ownership by honest people has gone way up over the last 20 years yet accidental gun deaths have gone way down.

Liberals hate freedom because they are afraid to live free.

 

[Harshaw]

The point is, they haven't placed any restrictions on me. It goes both ways -- they don't need to place any restrictions on my freedom, and I don't need to seek greater freedoms, because I have them all already.

Pray tell, my friend, what freedoms am I lacking here in France? Or in Britain? Name me one, that your glorious nation affords to its people, that the People's Police State of France does not.

They're discussing one around you in this very thread, for example.

Yes, yes; it's one you don't care about, yadda yadda. But that doesn't matter.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh, I've shot M-4s, AKs the whole lot of any good weapon. We have a few handguns and shotguns in my house. Im just reiterating what my british friends told me their attitudes were towards guns way back when. And you have yet to disprove what could be a valid point. :shrug:

there is no valid point-England banned handguns when ONE nutcase went bonkers. They punished thousands of honest people and guess what-gun crimes INCREASED in England

LIberals love punishing honest people to appear to be "doing something" be it jacking up taxes on the hardest working and most industrious people to soothe the butt hurt crying of the lazy and the untalented, or banning guns to placate the pillowheads and appear to be serious about crime. Look at that moron Jimmy Carter-he ruined the dreams and lifetime of work of our olympians so he could pat himself on his ass and say he did something about "soviet aggression"

successful people rock the liberal boat of mediocrity. Like "Jonathan E" in "Rollerball" the liberal establishment hates individualist winners.

Gun control is nothing more than an attempt to prevent individuals from making personal safety and private responsibility. that concept terrifies the collectivist sheep and their masters

 

[Sadie]

there is no valid point-England banned handguns when ONE nutcase went bonkers. They punished thousands of honest people and guess what-gun crimes INCREASED in England

LIberals love punishing honest people to appear to be "doing something" be it jacking up taxes on the hardest working and most industrious people to soothe the butt hurt crying of the lazy and the untalented, or banning guns to placate the pillowheads and appear to be serious about crime. Look at that moron Jimmy Carter-he ruined the dreams and lifetime of work of our olympians so he could pat himself on his ass and say he did something about "soviet aggression"

successful people rock the liberal boat of mediocrity. Like "Jonathan E" in "Rollerball" the liberal establishment hates individualist winners.

Gun control is nothing more than an attempt to prevent individuals from making personal safety and private responsibility. that concept terrifies the collectivist sheep and their masters

*Quiet applause*

 

[Ahlevah]

what stupidity-most gun deaths that are not suicides are from those involved in the drug trade.

Just ask Mexicans if their draconian gun control laws are working:

(A) government report that legislators leaked spoke of 22,700 deaths over little more than a three-year period, a far higher body count than the 18,000 or so given by El Universal, a leading newspaper.

Read more: Deaths in Mexico drug war pass 22,000, but who's counting? | McClatchy

 

[Ahlevah]

It seems to be working, but it is taking a toll on the health care system.

If a violent criminal is sent to the ER and pronounced DOA that's a plus, IMHO; he won't be hurting anyone else ever again. And statisticians don't deduct trauma cases that don't occur because somone successfully used a firearm to prevent a violent crime.