PDA

View Full Version : About H.R.4248: Without legal tenter laws,how can the government tax people?




shenlu54
12-20-2009, 09:44 AM
I have to say ,I'm a little confused about H.R.4248.

The question is :without the legal tender laws,like H.R.4248 intends to do,there would probably be no standard currency.Then in what standard could the central government tax people?

Nate
12-20-2009, 10:27 AM
I have to say ,I'm a little confused about H.R.4248.

The question is :without the legal tender laws,like H.R.4248 intends to do,there would probably be no standard currency.Then in what standard could the central government tax people?

They couldn't. That's one of the reasons why a Hayekian competing currency system is the monetary system of a free society. Government would be forced to gains funds through more honest means than theft.

LibertyEagle
12-20-2009, 10:55 AM
I have to say ,I'm a little confused about H.R.4248.

The question is :without the legal tender laws,like H.R.4248 intends to do,there would probably be no standard currency.Then in what standard could the central government tax people?

They could tax people in gold or silver equivalents.

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-20-2009, 11:12 AM
I believe after the Audit or in conjunction this should be our rallying cry.

LibertyEagle
12-20-2009, 11:14 AM
I believe after the Audit or in conjunction this should be our rallying cry.

I'm for that. :)

shenlu54
12-21-2009, 09:51 AM
They could tax people in gold or silver equivalents.

Yes,but what kinds of gold or silver equivalents could they tax? The bank notes which were backed by the gold or silver?

If that would be true,then I have another question,the bank which's bank notes were chosed to be used as tax by the central government could have more advantage than other banks,since it's evident that its bank notes would be accepted by more people than otherwise.

Am I wrong?

shenlu54
12-21-2009, 09:56 AM
They couldn't. That's one of the reasons why a Hayekian competing currency system is the monetary system of a free society. Government would be forced to gains funds through more honest means than theft.

WHAT?

If government don't tax people,how can it get enough funds to operate?

If tax is theft,than what is honest means?

I'm totally confused:confused::confused:

Anti Federalist
12-21-2009, 10:12 AM
WHAT?

If government don't tax people,how can it get enough funds to operate?

If tax is theft,than what is honest means?

I'm totally confused:confused::confused:

All taxation is theft.

Years ago in the US, "vital services" were paid by voluntary payments to insurers to cover fire or police protection.

Forcing you to pay at gunpoint is theft.

mczerone
12-21-2009, 10:48 AM
Yes,but what kinds of gold or silver equivalents could they tax? The bank notes which were backed by the gold or silver?

If that would be true,then I have another question,the bank which's bank notes were chosed to be used as tax by the central government could have more advantage than other banks,since it's evident that its bank notes would be accepted by more people than otherwise.

Am I wrong?

I'm sure taxation would still be feasible under competing currencies, because each firm will use a standard unit of account for its internal operations, and thus net profits and percent gains on investments will still be calculable. So there exists some taxation scheme that wouldn't favor any bank notes or credit accounts on its face.

Underlying this issue, however, is that taxation is not necessary. If fire, defense, security, police, etc. are valuable services, they can be freely contracted either as positive services (like buying cell phone service) or negative contingencies (as part of an insurance plan). An institution that claims to hold as an ideal the equal treatment of all of a people need not force tribute from all of those people to be effective, and just because the operations of some entity benefit another does not imply that payment should be forced on the second group.

Because you are from China, some of these ideas may be new. But Centralization itself is not necessary, and the services usurped by a government would necessarily be better provided by mutually entered contracts. Taxation is theft, true, but without taxation you would just get an ordinary bill for those services, and you can always choose a different provider - the only way to give the govt incentive to actually be efficient and effective, and to undertake only valuable operations and shy away from violent or elite-favoring activities.

fisharmor
12-21-2009, 11:13 AM
Competing currencies are a brilliant idea for this very reason.
Government would be forced into one of two scenarios:

a) Drastically scale back the scope of what government does, based on the fact that it would be fairly impossible to collect the same revenues as it does now. Either people would have a way to hide what he makes, and would comply with some minimal set of requirements for taxation, or government would have to give up completely on the notion of taxing individuals.

b) Government would have no choice but to send armed thugs into each and every home in the United States, and force the homeowners at gunpoint to show a complete account of all transactions they have made in various currencies and even non currency commodities.


I'll give my street as an example of why we don't need the taxes... we just got 24" of snow dumped on us over the weekend. I live in the one neighborhood that doesn't have government snow removal and doesn't have a housing association to do it for us.

As a result of there not being anyone controlling our neighborhood, I know all of my neighbors, we are used to working with each other, and as soon as the snow stopped all the men in the neighborhood were out with shovels getting everyone else dug out, starting with the elderly people. Whoever had snow blowers brought them out and let others borrow them. I got to work just fine this morning.

It is a concept called spontaneous order. The shame of our situation, though, is that we are still paying taxes on our road, which has not been paved in about 40 years, and is only plowed by people who live in the neighborhood. It would be much better for us if we didn't have to pay that money, since we would manage our street much better.

Nate
12-21-2009, 11:30 AM
WHAT?

If government don't tax people,how can it get enough funds to operate?

If tax is theft,than what is honest means?

I'm totally confused:confused::confused:

I don't want it to have enough funds to operate. Why would I want a organization of gangsters to acquire the resources to assault, rob & enslave me?

More honest means is not putting a gun in my face and STEALING my money & labor under the threat of the kidnapping (arrest/jail) or murder. If they want to offer me a service they can charge me a fee IF I CHOOSE to use their services. That is voluntary interaction in a free society between sovereign individuals. Forced taxation is the relationship between a slave and his master. If you or anybody else claims the right to MY MONEY, MY TIME & MY LABOR you are attempting to declare yourself my master. I AM NO SLAVE!! Neither you nor any other man is my master. I answer to Him who created me & NOBODY ELSE!

Still confused?

tremendoustie
12-21-2009, 11:49 AM
All taxation is theft.

Years ago in the US, "vital services" were paid by voluntary payments to insurers to cover fire or police protection.

Forcing you to pay at gunpoint is theft.

+1

I would voluntarily subscribe to fire services. Police/justice too, if they cleaned up their act.

tremendoustie
12-21-2009, 11:52 AM
I don't think that eliminating legal tender laws would preclude taxation, however. The government could still require payment in a particular currency, even if they did not enforce the use of it in contracts.

I certainly support ending all forced taxation, but I do think we can have monetary freedom in the mean time.

shenlu54
12-21-2009, 10:26 PM
Thanks your guys for giving many many fresh ideas!

Anyway,that raises me another question:What's the meaning of the government?

I believe, in local level, many today's public services like fire and sanitation can be provided through private sector.But when things extends to the national level,when the nation need to sign the treatments with foreign countries or fight the wars,when the nation need to behave like one man,then it always need someone to do these jobs,and in those cases, the govenment need money.

Besides,the three branches of the government: the legislative,executive and judiial system always need funds to operate.

And the only way the govenment can get money is through taxation, if it is deprived of the power to print money.

-------------------------

So I believe, in today's world,abolishing the taxation is unworkable,at least in short time,so my interest is on H.R.4248,abolishing the legal tender laws.

What the taxation system would be like if there be no legal tender laws? What does "a standard unit of account" mean?Shouldn't that be some kind of bank notes?Sure the people would have the rights to reject any bank notes they don't want ,but if the government favoured one bank notes over others in taxation,wouldn't that bank notes get more advantage or privilege?Would the competing currency system still be free?

Back to the 19th century,before the civil war,the US did not have a monopoly monetary system,and it worked,can anyone give me some information about the taxation system of that society,or some book advice?I will be very grateful.:)

Grimnir Wotansvolk
12-21-2009, 10:30 PM
Competing currencies are a brilliant idea for this very reason.
Government would be forced into one of two scenarios:

a) Drastically scale back the scope of what government does, based on the fact that it would be fairly impossible to collect the same revenues as it does now. Either people would have a way to hide what he makes, and would comply with some minimal set of requirements for taxation, or government would have to give up completely on the notion of taxing individuals.

b) Government would have no choice but to send armed thugs into each and every home in the United States, and force the homeowners at gunpoint to show a complete account of all transactions they have made in various currencies and even non currency commodities.


I'll give my street as an example of why we don't need the taxes... we just got 24" of snow dumped on us over the weekend. I live in the one neighborhood that doesn't have government snow removal and doesn't have a housing association to do it for us.

As a result of there not being anyone controlling our neighborhood, I know all of my neighbors, we are used to working with each other, and as soon as the snow stopped all the men in the neighborhood were out with shovels getting everyone else dug out, starting with the elderly people. Whoever had snow blowers brought them out and let others borrow them. I got to work just fine this morning.

It is a concept called spontaneous order. The shame of our situation, though, is that we are still paying taxes on our road, which has not been paved in about 40 years, and is only plowed by people who live in the neighborhood. It would be much better for us if we didn't have to pay that money, since we would manage our street much better.
I live in an area dominated by farming. We are no where near civilization. If a fire starts, government will not be there to put it out, and fire is devastating to a farmer. Tens of thousands of dollars can be burnt up in a matter of minutes. “How could poor backwoods people possibly handle their own fire fighting without the government???” cries the statist.

Nearly everyone has a some kind of fire fighting equipment. Ours is a beat up 1971 Ford F250 with a tank and pump strapped to the back. It couldn’t even get into a government inspection let alone pass one. Now this pickup alone could only handle the smallest of fires. But if there were a group of them…

The other day there was smoke on the horizon. We got in our “clunker,” and sped down to the scene. Before long, there were probably twenty-five fire trucks. We put out a fire in twenty mph gusts in about an hour.

Why did so many help? Four possible reasons I can think of:

1. Reciprocity. If I protect you today I hope you will do the same for me tomorrow.
2. Charity. Promotion of goodwill between neighbors.
3. Fear of Ostracism.
4. Protection of Property. Neighbors immediately adjacent to the fire may have reacted to protect their own property.

The fourth one can only account for three or four of those fighting the fire. No money is exchanged (sometimes thank you cards or small gifts are though) but market forces move actors to protect property and people nonetheless.

Mutual Aid works. Smash the (welfare) state!

http://sumofallvirtues.wordpress.com/

Met Income
12-21-2009, 10:30 PM
I love the fact that people from China found RonPaulForums. :)

tremendoustie
12-21-2009, 10:43 PM
Thanks your guys for giving many many fresh ideas!

Anyway,that raises me another question:What's the meaning of the government?

I believe, in local level, many today's public services like fire and sanitation can be provided through private sector.But when things extends to the national level,when the nation need to sign the treatments with foreign countries


Why do we need to sign treaties? On what basis would the government presume to sign treaties for us anyway? What of Jefferson's recommendation: Entangling alliances with none?



or fight the wars,


What wars? If we are attacked, cannot the militias band together for the common defense -- as was the constitutional method?



when the nation need to behave like one man


Groups of men acting as one need to be made up of men who support said action -- not men coerced into it.



,then it always need someone to do these jobs,and in those cases, the govenment need money.


People who support said government action should fund said action -- they should not force their neighbors to do so.




Besides,the three branches of the government: the legislative,executive and judiial system always need funds to operate.

And the only way the govenment can get money is through taxation, if it is deprived of the power to print money.


If that is so it is only because the government is doing nothing people find worthy of support, and so it must take the money by force.

Met Income
12-21-2009, 10:46 PM
And the only way the govenment can get money is through taxation, if it is deprived of the power to print money.

-------------------------


If the only way government can get money is to force people to give it at gunpoint, why do we want it? :)

shenlu54
12-22-2009, 08:29 PM
a) Drastically scale back the scope of what government does, based on the fact that it would be fairly impossible to collect the same revenues as it does now. Either people would have a way to hide what he makes, and would comply with some minimal set of requirements for taxation, or government would have to give up completely on the notion of taxing individuals.

I agree with this point.The government would lost power to tax individuals.

As to the treaties and wars,I think the federalist papers have given us some good arguments:


If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

I think the government existing itself is coercive,we can not change the fact unless there be no government at all...


Anyway,I just find this terrific article :The Myth of Neutral Taxation (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard36.html), written by Rothbard.

Is it true that competing currency system is in no way compatible with taxation?

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-22-2009, 09:27 PM
I agree with this point.The government would lost power to tax individuals.

As to the treaties and wars,I think the federalist papers have given us some good arguments:



I think the government existing itself is coercive,we can not change the fact unless there be no government at all...


Anyway,I just find this terrific article :The Myth of Neutral Taxation (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard36.html), written by Rothbard.

Is it true that competing currency system is in no way compatible with taxation?

We do not need a State. As Lew puts it: "Economics tells the State, we don't need you."

Indeed, every service should be privatized and subject to the free-market. As for the Federalist papers, they were nothing more than Statist propaganda of the day to ruse the population into accepting a monolithic State, one in which was vehemently against the interests of the people. Here again, you can see the power of propaganda and demagogery. I would advise you to read the Anti-Federalist papers. I would take the words of Mason, P. Henry, Sam Adams, etc. over the likes of Madison and Hamilton, etc.

It is naivette to believe that monopolistic power can ever contain itself. Indeed, the prevailing history of the US should be a strong condemnation of this assertion.

I never did understand how those who believe in free-markets know that it produces a higher quality good/service at cheaper prices in a just fashion in every conceivable sector and industry, yet, balk at the notion that it somehow fails some test in other sectors which are no different than say, agriculture. All the laws of economics apply uniformly through all services and goods. That is, generally what I find to hold most back is law. There have been ample precedent in history from the land clubs in the west, to Xeer in Somalia, to every day contracts here in the US for the abolishment of monopoly on law, justice, and police.

If we believe that monopolistic entities protected via privilege, or law, are always inefficient and unjust, then how come there are still among us who support such institutions? From a moral and just(ice) standpoint there is only one logical conclusion - The State must go, and as soon as possible.

In any event, I believe that HR 4248 is extremely important. This would be a huge step in the right direction and I would wager the Liberty Dollar would overwhelm FRN's in a relatively short time. This could be our "end around" the FED. Not only that, but it would put a stark hold on the out of control behemoth on Capital Hill.

axiomata
12-22-2009, 10:14 PM
I love the fact that people from China found RonPaulForums. :)

I love the fact that RPF gets through their firewall.