Where are the Anarchists Now?

[tjeffersonsghost]

I was on a thread a few days ago talking about the roll of government and how we need government to uphold its constitutional roles. The anarchists on the thread bashed the idea of a government saying that we should pay 0 taxes and we should dissolve the government. I agree we need to shrink government dramatically but abolish government all together?

Now to my point

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1511097510&play=1

This is a video of a guy talking about the potential effects of this oil spill. If we get a Cat 2 or 3 hurricane in the gulf it will pick up oil on the surface and pour it all over inland creating a modern day Ukraine with dead zones where people cannot live.

Obama is sitting on his thumbs letting the "private sector" take care of it and it's not happening. This disregard for the environment and the livelihoods of the working class is reminiscent of the Gilded Age all over again and it needs to be taken care of. We don't need an Obama we need a Teddy Rooseveldt to kick some ass. Enough of the exploitation of both the working class and our environment. What is RP's take on this? Does he feel it's time for the government to just in and fix this BP mess or continue to let BP do it? Does he feel we need to pursue criminal charges? Bring on the flames and where are my anarchists?

[erowe1]

So wait. Are you implying that you do support taxes? Involuntary ones?

[Kludge]

What does the government propose to stop the leak and why haven't they offered these ideas to BP?

[RileyE104]

Is President Obama really letting the "private sector" take care of the oil spill?

I have no clue what to think of this... I feel like there's something deeper going on that will give the Government more reason to get involved in our lives and at the same time blame capitalism for this failure.

[Stary Hickory]

What does the government propose to stop the leak and why haven't they offered these ideas to BP?

Exactly this. The government has no clue how to clean this up. While BP has expertise, experience, and a REAL motivation to get this resolved. They lose more money every second this goes on.

The government can do no better than BP is doing. It's all political posturing.

[RileyE104]

What does the government propose to stop the leak and why haven't they offered these ideas to BP?

I saw people on another forum talking about nuking it! lol
Our Government is pretty good at that so.... :p

[tjeffersonsghost]

So wait. Are you implying that you do support taxes? Involuntary ones?

Tariffs or some sort of sales tax. I dont think you should tax labor. That is slavery.

[tjeffersonsghost]

What does the government propose to stop the leak and why haven't they offered these ideas to BP?

Doesnt matter. If they had the cure right now should the government take care of it? I mean if it was up to many on this board we wouldnt have a government.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Is President Obama really letting the "private sector" take care of the oil spill?

I have no clue what to think of this... I feel like there's something deeper going on that will give the Government more reason to get involved in our lives and at the same time blame capitalism for this failure.

You can have capitalism but you have to have rules (law) and a government that upholds them. We dont have that right now which is why we have messes like the banks, environmental destruction, illegal immigration, and on and on. No one is upholding the law

[KCIndy]

Tariffs or some sort of sales tax. I dont think you should tax labor. That is slavery.


:)

Um... with all due respect, you might want to think this one through.

If I'm paying a sales tax or if the price of a product I purchase goes up via a tariff, exactly WHERE is that extra money I'm paying coming from? Answer: from my pocket, from money I earned via my labor.

As you state in your concluding sentence, ANY taxation essentially amounts to slavery.

You're about halfway through the mental work of breaking your shackles. Keep on going!!! Seriously!

[Pizzo]

Doesnt matter. If they had the cure right now should the government take care of it? I mean if it was up to many on this board we wouldnt have a government.



From the little reading i've been doing on the matter, it seems like BP will have to drill relief wells to stop some of the pressure before they cap the leak, like w2as done last year in Australia at depthe over 8,000 feet. The problem is it takes time to do that. It took The Thai company 10 weeks to do in Australia, but that leak while deeper wasn't as big. The problem might actually be too much government, not too little. Chances are BP i8s making these attempts knowing they will not work, just so it looksl ike they are doing something, and likely due to political pressure to make it look like they are being pressured to do something. It may take even longer to make an attempt at a proven strategy that takes time because of the smalle atte3mpts that seem like crapshoots.

[familydog]

I was on a thread a few days ago talking about the roll of government and how we need government to uphold its constitutional roles. The anarchists on the thread bashed the idea of a government saying that we should pay 0 taxes and we should dissolve the government. I agree we need to shrink government dramatically but abolish government all together?

Now to my point

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1511097510&play=1

This is a video of a guy talking about the potential effects of this oil spill. If we get a Cat 2 or 3 hurricane in the gulf it will pick up oil on the surface and pour it all over inland creating a modern day Ukraine with dead zones where people cannot live.

Obama is sitting on his thumbs letting the "private sector" take care of it and it's not happening. This disregard for the environment and the livelihoods of the working class is reminiscent of the Gilded Age all over again and it needs to be taken care of. We don't need an Obama we need a Teddy Rooseveldt to kick some ass. Enough of the exploitation of both the working class and our environment. What is RP's take on this? Does he feel it's time for the government to just in and fix this BP mess or continue to let BP do it? Does he feel we need to pursue criminal charges? Bring on the flames and where are my anarchists?

Your basic premise that government cares for people is laughable, at best.

Would this even be an issue if not for the government created corporation?

[tjeffersonsghost]

:)

Um... with all due respect, you might want to think this one through.

If I'm paying a sales tax or if the price of a product I purchase goes up via a tariff, exactly WHERE is that extra money I'm paying coming from? Answer: from my pocket, from money I earned via my labor.

As you state in your concluding sentence, ANY taxation essentially amounts to slavery.

You're about halfway through the mental work of breaking your shackles. Keep on going!!! Seriously!

Not true. You can choose what you purchase with a sales tax. Taxing labor there is no choice you work harder, you get taxed more. With a sales tax / excise taxes you get rewarded for saving and if you want to go blow all your money on chinese crap you get nailed. Once again you get the choice.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Your basic premise that government cares for people is laughable, at best.

Would this even be an issue if not for the government created corporation?

Governments are created to enforce laws for the country and to protect freedom. Whether they do or not is another issue. As of now the government only cares for a handful of international corporate interests. We have an Oligarchy.

[aravoth]

Governments are created to enforce laws for the country and to protect freedom. Whether they do or not is another issue. As of now the government only cares for a handful of international corporate interests. We have an Oligarchy.

Government cannot "protect freedom". Thats like saying you can "enforce liberty".
Government is freedom's polar opposite. Establishing laws, and enforcing them at the point of a gun does not make a society free.

[Bruno]

Obama has said he is in charge and the buck stops with him. How's that going so far?

[tjeffersonsghost]

From the little reading i've been doing on the matter, it seems like BP will have to drill relief wells to stop some of the pressure before they cap the leak, like w2as done last year in Australia at depthe over 8,000 feet. The problem is it takes time to do that. It took The Thai company 10 weeks to do in Australia, but that leak while deeper wasn't as big. The problem might actually be too much government, not too little. Chances are BP i8s making these attempts knowing they will not work, just so it looksl ike they are doing something, and likely due to political pressure to make it look like they are being pressured to do something. It may take even longer to make an attempt at a proven strategy that takes time because of the smalle atte3mpts that seem like crapshoots.

Have they started drilling the relief well yet?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

LOL @ this the OP.

So you honestly think government has a solution to the BP spill? Hey, I live in the Gulf Coast and I am more pissed at BP than anybody, but a false sense of security was created BY GOVERNMENT with their regulations. Why would a bunch of bureaucrats care about the gulf coast when they have no stake in it? Property owners, and people who make a living off the coast should have been included in the oversite of the oil rigs, but no, the rigs were in FEDERAL WATERS and the Materials Management regulators were in bed with the oil company execs.

This is another failure of government IMO, and instead of constantly threatening and chastising BP, they should be saying what can we do to help? Instead they are threatening them with criminal charges and windfall taxes? You dont think BP is feeling this? They got hit up 70 Billion since the oil spill. This is a tragic accident and everybody needs to pull together and do what they have to do to fix what they can, that's it. Shit happens.

[Bruno]

Have they started drilling the relief well yet?

They are currently drilling two wells, from my understanding, which are ahead of schedule but still more than a month away from providing relief.

[Pizzo]

Have they started drilling the relief well yet?

Not sure. Like I said they are too busy attempting things that seem to have no hope except for public perception. What I'm saying is if they haven't started drilling the relief well or prepared to do it, which I imagine is not an overnight process, i would think it's because of the government's "boot on their neck" as opposed to hteir desire to lose billions of dollars.

I guess Pelosi, Biden, and Aquaman should be down there in scuba gear with welding torches.

[RileyE104]

Government cannot "protect freedom". Thats like saying you can "enforce liberty".
Government is freedom's polar opposite. Establishing laws, and enforcing them at the point of a gun does not make a society free.

Well, there is... "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

But I get what you're saying..

[tjeffersonsghost]

Government cannot "protect freedom". Thats like saying you can "enforce liberty".
Government is freedom's polar opposite. Establishing laws, and enforcing them at the point of a gun does not make a society free.

If an electorate doesnt hold their politicians accountable then you will indeed have tyranny like we have now. There should be laws like property protection laws, contract laws, etc etc. There needs to be a power to enforce and uphold these laws.

What you wish for is a Utopian pipe dream similar to the liberals and that is if there is no government tyranny will cease to exist. Human nature says otherwise. You can see this clearly after the fall of Rome and what happened afterwords in Europe. You have many tyrannical groups fighting for power. You see this in modern times also in places like Somalia.

[Krugerrand]

What does the government propose to stop the leak and why haven't they offered these ideas to BP?

Ben Bernanke's solution would be to print more money and shove it into the broken pipe.

[KCIndy]

Not true. You can choose what you purchase with a sales tax. Taxing labor there is no choice you work harder, you get taxed more. With a sales tax / excise taxes you get rewarded for saving and if you want to go blow all your money on chinese crap you get nailed. Once again you get the choice.


Where do you live?

In Indiana, I get to "choose" to pay a sales tax when I buy shoes, clothes, and some types of food.

Unless I want to walk to work naked and live on bottled spring water and turnips, I'm stuck paying sales tax.

[eproxy100]

I didn't know there were many anarchists on this board.

I think the founding fathers knew that the main problem with anarchy is that there would be a power vacuum. That void will inevitably be filled. It'd certainly be a bad thing for that power to be taken by a tyrant. So what's the solution? The founding fathers put the constitution, including the bill of rights, in as the "tyrant". It's not emotional and cannot be corrupted by its own power so that's good.

The only problem is that the constitution can't enforce its own laws. It relies on the checks and balances between the executive, judiciary, and congress which all have clearly failed at this point. Remember, it didn't take long for the constitution to be violated.

Thomas Jefferson was right when he said that "every generation needs a new revolution."

[Kludge]

Doesnt matter. If they had the cure right now should the government take care of it? I mean if it was up to many on this board we wouldnt have a government.

What do you mean "Doesnt matter"? It's reality -- most would say it's all that matters - especially people claiming they care about the actual effects of the oil spill. If government could take care of it - then of course they ought to - but they can't, because of reasons Stary outlined.


This is a natural disaster. The government can't "fix" it -- BP can't "fix" it. It is a disaster.


The government cannot fix certain things. Neither can the free market. Nobody can correct certain problems. And in many cases, the blowback and cost opportunity of implementing "beneficial" programs factor in to hurt the citizens it tries to help. There are many cases in which we really should do nothing and let nature take its course.

[tjeffersonsghost]

This is another failure of government IMO, and instead of constantly threatening and chastising BP, they should be saying what can we do to help? Instead they are threatening them with criminal charges and windfall taxes? You dont think BP is feeling this? They got hit up 70 Billion since the oil spill. This is a tragic accident and everybody needs to pull together and do what they have to do to fix what they can, that's it. Shit happens.

It will be a failure if property rights arent protected. Criminal charges need to be filed. If the government doesnt protect property rights then they are not doing their job.

[familydog]

Governments are created to enforce laws for the country and to protect freedom. Whether they do or not is another issue. As of now the government only cares for a handful of international corporate interests. We have an Oligarchy.

Considering government creates those same laws, your statement makes no sense.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

It will be a failure if property rights aren't protected. Criminal charges need to be filed. If the government doesn't protect property rights then they are not doing their job.

No doubt, but first you have to find malfeasance before you issue criminal charges. And most of the malfeasance I see came from the FREAKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[tjeffersonsghost]

I didn't know there were many anarchists on this board.

I think the founding fathers knew that the main problem with anarchy is that there would be a power vacuum. That void will inevitably be filled. It'd certainly be a bad thing for that power to be taken by a tyrant. So what's the solution? The founding fathers put the constitution, including the bill of rights, in as the "tyrant". It's not emotional and cannot be corrupted by its own power so that's good.

The only problem is that the constitution can't enforce its own laws. It relies on the checks and balances between the executive, judiciary, and congress which all have clearly failed at this point. Remember, it didn't take long for the constitution to be violated.

Thomas Jefferson was right when he said that "every generation needs a new revolution."

+100 You get it.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Considering government creates those same laws, your statement makes no sense.

The government that we the electorate elected....

[familydog]

The government that we the electorate elected....

I don't remember electing anybody.

[ClayTrainor]

The government that we the electorate elected....

Democracy is a bitch, ain't it?

[tjeffersonsghost]

No doubt, but first you have to find malfeasance before you issue criminal charges. And most of the malfeasance I see came from the FREAKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

It was the governments fault that BP drilled in deep water? It was there fault it exploded? It was there fault BP only uses half the back up protections as a company in Brazil? Sorry this cant be pinned on the government. If the government doesnt enforce property laws then it is malfeasance. I have the right to property without BP coming to destroy it.

[Kludge]

The government that we the electorate elected....

Your target audience is allegedly anarchists. Anarchists don't vote and view the government as an illegitimate occupier of persons' land.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Where do you live?

In Indiana, I get to "choose" to pay a sales tax when I buy shoes, clothes, and some types of food.

Unless I want to walk to work naked and live on bottled spring water and turnips, I'm stuck paying sales tax.

Correct, you cant get out of paying taxes all together. Once again the government needs some sort of income to run even its constitutional duties. But how much you donate depends on how much crap you want to buy. You choose.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Your target audience is allegedly anarchists. Anarchists don't vote and view the government as an illegitimate occupier of persons' land.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2708786#post2708786

There is my debate with anarchists on the board. Its a few pages so be prepared to read.... They want 0 government.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Democracy is a bitch, ain't it?

It is when you have an incompetent electorate, yeah.

[ClayTrainor]

Once again the government needs some sort of income to run even its constitutional duties.

and illegal wars, welfare state, bailouts for the rich, etc.



But how much you donate depends on how much crap you want to buy. You choose.

So when I make a voluntary trade with my neighbor and an armed mob comes in to take a chunk of the mutual profit under the threat of force, I should consider it a donation?

[fisharmor]

Governments are created to enforce laws for the country and to protect freedom. Whether they do or not is another issue.

No, it's not another issue, it's the ONLY issue.

I am not against airport screening because it infringes my rights - it's a factor, but I'm against it primarily because IT DOESN'T WORK.

I am not against government run "education" because they've eliminated allodial title to real estate - it's a factor, but I'm against it primarily because IT DOESN'T WORK.

I am not against government interference in the Gulf spill for any other reason than this: IT WILL NOT WORK.

All we'll get after government takes over is a trillion dollar bill, a bunch of awards given out to brave men and women who totally failed to stop it, a bunch of "we didn't cause this problem", and fingers pointed at capitalism.

[ClayTrainor]

There is my debate with anarchists on the board. Its a few pages so be prepared to read.... They want 0 government.

The anarchists on this board tend to support property rights and Rule of Law to the fullest extent. They do not make exceptions to it for armed mobs that wish to use coercion and force against innocent people, even if they call themselves a "government".

[tjeffersonsghost]

and illegal wars, welfare state, bailouts for the rich, etc.



So when I make a voluntary trade with my neighbor and an armed mob comes in to take a chunk of the mutual profit under the threat of force, I should consider it a donation?

I didnt say subsidize, bailouts, or nation building was constitutional.

I was not using the term donate in a literal sense. But yea if money needs to be raised it should be done via an excise tax, tariff, or sales tax and not labor.

[tjeffersonsghost]

No, it's not another issue, it's the ONLY issue.

I am not against airport screening because it infringes my rights - it's a factor, but I'm against it primarily because IT DOESN'T WORK.

I am not against government run "education" because they've eliminated allodial title to real estate - it's a factor, but I'm against it primarily because IT DOESN'T WORK.

I am not against government interference in the Gulf spill for any other reason than this: IT WILL NOT WORK.

All we'll get after government takes over is a trillion dollar bill, a bunch of awards given out to brave men and women who totally failed to stop it, a bunch of "we didn't cause this problem", and fingers pointed at capitalism.

So the government doesnt do anything right?

[fisharmor]

I didnt say subsidize, bailouts, or nation building was constitutional.

Ok, you're the one who introduced the idea of constitutionality.
Show us how a federal effort in the Gulf is constitutional.

[ClayTrainor]

I didnt say subsidize, bailouts, or nation building was constitutional.

I didn't say you did. I'm just pointing out the consistent byproducts of taxation, constitutional or not.



I was not using the term donate in a literal sense. But yea if money needs to be raised it should be done via an excise tax, tariff, or sales tax and not labor.

All taxes on trade and goods will directly impact labor.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Ok, you're the one who introduced the idea of constitutionality.
Show us how a federal effort in the Gulf is constitutional.

The protection of property is constitutional which is what this is....

[fisharmor]

So the government doesnt do anything right?

What it "right" it does, it does by force, and the right it does is less right than that which could be done without force.

[fisharmor]

The protection of property is constitutional which is what this is....

Saying it doesn't make it so.
Give us the article and section or amendment which authorizes the federal government to protect property.

[tjeffersonsghost]

I didn't say you did. I'm just pointing out the consistent byproducts of taxation, constitutional or not.


This is why the people need to hold the people accountable and speak up. As Ben Franklin said "Ive given you a Republic, if you can keep it."



All taxes on trade and goods will directly impact labor.

Money to run the government has to be raised in one fashion or another. Taxes on trade and goods will affect prices, but at least you get to choose what products and services you choose to pay the higher price on.

[Fredom101]

Dude, slow down, let's talk about root causes of this disaster.

The government FORCED companies to drill far off shore, making it more difficult and risky for things like this to happen.

I turn it around and say:

"WHERE ARE MY STATISTS NOW?"

[Pizzo]

OP, ever consider that the stopping of the leak may be taking longer because of the gov't? Like I said in my earlier posts, the gov't said they will keep a "boot on the neck of BP" Have you considered that BP is making these futile attempts just to make it look like they are doing something with governmental pressure to do so? Also taking away resources to a more viable solution, although more lengthy process? What if BP came out in the beginning and said, "Here is the situation, we have a solution, but it will take about 8-10 weeks to implement. They'd be crucified even worse than they are. But now they are trying to siphon oil, topkills, sawing, none of which seems to have a snowballs chance in hell, but at least it looks like they are trying to do something. But in the meantime, the more likely to be successful process that would have taken 8-10 weeks may now take 16 weeks.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Saying it doesn't make it so.
Give us the article and section or amendment which authorizes the federal government to protect property.

Really?

Im not even going to answer that, the Constitution gives the government the power to protect property.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Dude, slow down, let's talk about root causes of this disaster.

The government FORCED companies to drill far off shore, making it more difficult and risky for things like this to happen.

I turn it around and say:

"WHERE ARE MY STATISTS NOW?"

This!

Because of "regulations" the oil companies have to drill further offshore, which has made it near impossible for them to cap this thing. Its not really rocket science to see this. Yet people think that MORE regulations and MORE government is going to solve this problem.

I think that the ron paul people especially on the gulf need to band together via meetups or whatever and VOLUNTARILY help with clean up, all while promoting liberty and the RP message. I am currently looking into this.

I'm curious, what has the OP done to help with this mess? Oh wait, he just wants to wait for the govt to come along and clean up the mess on everyone elses dime, instead of acting like an individual and doing whats right.

[tjeffersonsghost]

What it "right" it does, it does by force, and the right it does is less right than that which could be done without force.

Without a government would we have an interstate system?

Would it be safe to eat at a restaurant?

How many people would be dying at the work place?

How many children would we have?

What would our landscape look like? Our environment?

Would we still have slavery?

Listen I agree the government we have today is bloated and needs to be shrunk some in some areas and a lot in other areas. But much of this is because we have a populace in a drug like trance. I think people are waking up and seeing the two party crime family for what it is.

[newbitech]

It was the governments fault that BP drilled in deep water? It was there fault it exploded? It was there fault BP only uses half the back up protections as a company in Brazil? Sorry this cant be pinned on the government. If the government doesnt enforce property laws then it is malfeasance. I have the right to property without BP coming to destroy it.


BP drilled in deep water because Federal and State governments own the property rights to offshore oil and gas.

Federal and State governments ban drilling in shallow water closer to the coast. In its infinite wisdom, governments allow deep water offshore drilling because the government thinks it is "safer".

So yes, it is the governments fault that BP drilled in deep water.

not an anarchist.

[ClayTrainor]

This is why the people need to hold the people accountable and speak up. As Ben Franklin said "Ive given you a Republic, if you can keep it."


It's awfully hard to hold the people who tax you accountable to you. If you choose not to pay them for their services, an armed mob will be showing up at your door to steal your property and possibly throw you into a tiny cell for a few years.



Money to run the government has to be raised in one fashion or another.

And what should happen to people who actively but peacefully disagree?



Taxes on trade and goods will affect prices, but at least you get to choose what products and services you choose to pay the higher price on.

1. Taxes on trade and goods will directly affect the cost of labor of people making those trades and goods. By imposing a sales tax, you are still taxing labor.

2. I, like most others, will buy things based on my own needs and desires, not how much I want to support or not support my government. Putting a sales tax on what I buy is only coercively forcing me to pay more for what I would buy anyways.

[newbitech]

Without a government would we have an interstate system?

Would it be safe to eat at a restaurant?

How many people would be dying at the work place?

How many children would we have?

What would our landscape look like? Our environment?

Would we still have slavery?

Listen I agree the government we have today is bloated and needs to be shrunk some in some areas and a lot in other areas. But much of this is because we have a populace in a drug like trance. I think people are waking up and seeing the two party crime family for what it is.


Is there anything that "we" can do without government?

[Travlyr]

Is this anarchy? http://critical-mass.info/

[tjeffersonsghost]

This!

Oh wait, he just wants to wait for the govt to come along and clean up the mess on everyone elses dime, instead of acting like an individual and doing whats right.

Nope not on everyone elses dime. On the dime of BP and the people who live in the local area. I choose not to live in such a place as Louisiana because of all of the potential problems. Why should I have to continually pay to bailout people who choose to live there on their own free will. I dont think FEMA should exist. I think each state should have their own FEMA.

If this affects Florida (which Im sure it will eventually) then Ill be helping. I choose to live here so I get to pay the piper.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Without a government would we have an interstate system?

Would it be safe to eat at a restaurant?

How many people would be dying at the work place?

How many children would we have?

What would our landscape look like? Our environment?

Would we still have slavery?

Listen I agree the government we have today is bloated and needs to be shrunk some in some areas and a lot in other areas. But much of this is because we have a populace in a drug like trance. I think people are waking up and seeing the two party crime family for what it is.

Wow, you really should go and pick you up Ron Paul's End the Fed and The Revolution: A Manifesto and go read them. Right NOW!

[tjeffersonsghost]

Is there anything that "we" can do without government?

A lot. My point is to address the people who think we need 0 government. Im for a limited government but not for 0 government.

[MelissaWV]

BP drilled in deep water because Federal and State governments own the property rights to offshore oil and gas.

Federal and State governments ban drilling in shallow water closer to the coast. In its infinite wisdom, governments allow deep water offshore drilling because the government thinks it is "safer".

So yes, it is the governments fault that BP drilled in deep water.

not an anarchist.

To carry this further, if the Government regulations did not prohibit exploration in certain places, then it WOULD be ABSOLUTELY BP's fault if they chose to drill in deep water and this happened. This isn't to hold BP blameless, because if you're going to drill that deep you'd better have a plan in place (and a dozen others) that will stop a leak along these lines. This happened to be the Horizon essentially exploding, but there are other things that can cause a gusher that becomes your responsibility.

The fact that oil companies do, in fact, have one hand tied behind their back when deciding where and how to drill... is part of the reason we are in this particular mess, and not just talking about cleaning up a little oil that spewed out before they could cap it in shallow water.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Nope not on everyone elses dime. On the dime of BP and the people who live in the local area. I choose not to live in such a place as Louisiana because of all of the potential problems. Why should I have to continually pay to bailout people who choose to live there on their own free will. I dont think FEMA should exist. I think each state should have their own FEMA.

If this affects Florida (which Im sure it will eventually) then Ill be helping. I choose to live here so I get to pay the piper.

You think this won't affect you at all? This will give everyone problems. Wait until the hurricanes start coming into the mix.

[aravoth]

Without a government would we have an interstate system?

Would it be safe to eat at a restaurant?

Yes




How many people would be dying at the work place? probably the same.




How many children would we have?

Are you advocating forced sterilization here?



What would our landscape look like? Our environment?
Probably a lot better since you wouldn't have government subsidizing every single harmful thing to the environment. Like Offshore oil platforms.



Would we still have slavery?
No, in fact you wouldn't have debt slavery either.



Listen I agree the government we have today is bloated and needs to be shrunk some in some areas and a lot in other areas. But much of this is because we have a populace in a drug like trance. I think people are waking up and seeing the two party crime family for what it is.

Society doesn't need a management team.

[tjeffersonsghost]

1. Taxes on trade and goods will directly affect the cost of labor of people making those trades and goods. By imposing a sales tax, you are still taxing labor.

2. I, like most others, will buy things based on my own needs and desires, not how much I want to support or not support my government. Putting a sales tax on what I buy is only coercively forcing me to pay more for what I would buy anyways.

Once again at least you get a choice. The current tax system you get no choice. The harder you work the more you get taxed.

[Pizzo]

Once again at least you get a choice. The current tax system you get no choice. The harder you work the more you get taxed.

So you would replace the income tax with a consumption tax? So what about people who have worked and paid taxes all these years? Now I have to go ahead and pay higher taxes again on things I buy with money that has been taxed on a fedral and state level again? Sounds fair.

[ClayTrainor]

Once again at least you get a choice. The current tax system you get no choice.

A sales tax is not a choice, it is imposed and enforced.

What should happen to a peaceful business that does not wish to obey the sales tax?


The harder you work the more you get taxed.

Also true under a sales tax. You work more to pay for more expensive products and you have to work more to give the government their share of everything you buy and sell.

[newbitech]

Nope not on everyone elses dime. On the dime of BP and the people who live in the local area. I choose not to live in such a place as Louisiana because of all of the potential problems. Why should I have to continually pay to bailout people who choose to live there on their own free will. I dont think FEMA should exist. I think each state should have their own FEMA.

If this affects Florida (which Im sure it will eventually) then Ill be helping. I choose to live here so I get to pay the piper.


yep me too. I lobbied 15 years ago to ban all drilling off of Florida's coast. Why?

Because there will not be enough oil drilled off of Florida's coast to make enough money to pay for the loss of our fragile ecosystem.

Hurricane Charlie in 2004 cut off Captiva from Sanibel island. It has taken 5 years to restore that pristine beach. At one point that beach was considered to have been the worlds finest, with its sugar soft pure white sand.

Once the oil starts washing up on these beaches and getting sucked into the inner coastal waterways, the environment will be ruined for decades.

BP will be bankrupt LONG before the devastation is fully realized. You can ask BP to pay for the cleanup, but at that point, they cease to become a oil production company. I think that is great, they should pay for the cleanup even if that bankrupts them. In the mean time, government will continue to pass laws that encourage companies to take distorted risks that lead to disasters that will never be paid for.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Aravoth..

1. Before safety regulations people died regularly from eating our and especially buying meat. You can thank the "somewhat" safe food to laws created.

2.In regards to the massive death in the workplace. In the late 1800s early 1900s there was massive death at work. We dont even have a fraction now.

3.Not for sterilization I just asked the wrong question. My question was meant to be How many children would we have in the factories today?

4.Regards to the environment. Before regulations you could literally light rivers and lakes on fire because of the pollution. We wouldnt have any state parks or protected land for us to enjoy, it would all be developed. You should of seen urban areas in the late 1800s early 1900s before the laws were put into place. Things are going downhill again though because the government is no longer enforcing the laws on the books.

[MelissaWV]

What if a business would like to sell basic items without sales tax attached? Basic food items are not currently subject to sales tax. This is also a boon to charities and food pantries, and to those that donate to them. If a business decides this is a good policy, the Government is going to stomp in and demand their share of the receipts?

[ClayTrainor]

tjeffersonsghost

No offence intended from this, but you seem to be making the same kind of arguments that I'm used to hearing from Keynsians and big government socialists...

Out of curiosity, have you read any of Ron Pauls books? He directly challenges some of the things you seem to support.

[tjeffersonsghost]

You think this won't affect you at all? This will give everyone problems. Wait until the hurricanes start coming into the mix.

I said it probably will, eventually. At that point I get to pay the piper because I live here. I shouldnt have to bail out people who choose to live in certain areas prone to natural or man made disasters like Louisiana or California. I already pay my own share living here in Florida.

[moostraks]

Listen I agree the government we have today is bloated and needs to be shrunk some in some areas and a lot in other areas. But much of this is because we have a populace in a drug like trance. I think people are waking up and seeing the two party crime family for what it is.

This made me lol as the biggest proponents for medicating to the point of making a populace of zombies are government entities. Thanks to the FDA we can purchase any manner of toxic substances to make sure we don't exhibit any unsightly behavior changes such as 'moods'. I wouldn't bet on the populace waking up in large measure as too many are on Prozac like products to even give a care.

[newbitech]

A lot. My point is to address the people who think we need 0 government. Im for a limited government but not for 0 government.

Try not to get distracted by that. Instead, lets focus on limiting government by realizing things we can do without government.

When "we" begin to encapsulate those actions and ideas within the scope of what we can do without government, then we can realize that anarchy can only truly exist within the broader sphere of limited government, no the other way around.

I used to be really concerned about anarchist in the Freedom camp as well. But honestly, I have never met a Ron Paul supporting anarchist. Why? Because those folks don't participate in the political process outside of random anonymous encounters on political message boards.

I believe folks who align themselves with the anarchist school of thought are valuable members to the freedom movement in the sense that when their ideas and actions are formed within the proper scope and proper context, these ideas and actions align perfectly with the founders and the founding documents.

[tremendoustie]

I was on a thread a few days ago talking about the roll of government and how we need government to uphold its constitutional roles. The anarchists on the thread bashed the idea of a government saying that we should pay 0 taxes and we should dissolve the government. I agree we need to shrink government dramatically but abolish government all together?

Now to my point

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1511097510&play=1 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1511097510&play=1)

This is a video of a guy talking about the potential effects of this oil spill. If we get a Cat 2 or 3 hurricane in the gulf it will pick up oil on the surface and pour it all over inland creating a modern day Ukraine with dead zones where people cannot live.

Obama is sitting on his thumbs letting the "private sector" take care of it and it's not happening. This disregard for the environment and the livelihoods of the working class is reminiscent of the Gilded Age all over again and it needs to be taken care of. We don't need an Obama we need a Teddy Rooseveldt to kick some ass. Enough of the exploitation of both the working class and our environment. What is RP's take on this? Does he feel it's time for the government to just in and fix this BP mess or continue to let BP do it? Does he feel we need to pursue criminal charges? Bring on the flames and where are my anarchists?

BP should be 100% liable for all the damages they have caused. That's real accountability.

I'm no fan of taxes, or the state -- but I do support enforcement of rules against harming other people, and restitution for those who have been harmed.

[tjeffersonsghost]

What if a business would like to sell basic items without sales tax attached? Basic food items are not currently subject to sales tax. This is also a boon to charities and food pantries, and to those that donate to them. If a business decides this is a good policy, the Government is going to stomp in and demand their share of the receipts?

I personally would be against food and clothes being taxed. I would tax everything else. But that would be for the electorate and its elected officials to decide.

[tjeffersonsghost]

BP should be 100% liable for all the damages they have caused. That's real accountability.

I'm no fan of taxes, or the state -- but I do support enforcement of rules against harming other people, and restitution for those who have been harmed.

+100 Protecting property rights.

[MelissaWV]

Aravoth..

1. Before safety regulations people died regularly from eating our and especially buying meat. You can thank the "somewhat" safe food to laws created.

2.In regards to the massive death in the workplace. In the late 1800s early 1900s there was massive death at work. We dont even have a fraction now.

3.Not for sterilization I just asked the wrong question. My question was meant to be How many children would we have in the factories today?

4.Regards to the environment. Before regulations you could literally light rivers and lakes on fire because of the pollution. We wouldnt have any state parks or protected land for us to enjoy, it would all be developed. You should of seen urban areas in the late 1800s early 1900s before the laws were put into place. Things are going downhill again though because the government is no longer enforcing the laws on the books.

1. The populace was also incredibly uneducated. People didn't particularly have access to widespread refrigeration, but that couldn't have anything to do with it...

2. You mean that when machines were brand new, and people didn't know how to work them, they got into more accidents? Amazing, amazing.

3. Child labor laws are a joke. I wanted to work during HS to make enough money to leave home. I couldn't. My hours were closely guarded, my breaks monitored, and I couldn't work certain days/hours at all. Thank you, Government, for saving me from myself. Is there a particular reason that overworking your child or having them in a dangerous environment would not already be covered under the numerous child abuse statutes out there? That would allow those of us that wanted to earn a living, and were basically done with school, to do so. That would also net us too much in savings, though, and maybe have prevented some kids from getting student loans.

4. Nothing would prevent people from buying conservation areas. Nothing would prevent private societies from establishing parks of their own (and collecting dues from people that would like to support them, or camping fees, or similar revenue). Super! We have National Parks! :rolleyes: Any idea if, say, that land's been used as collateral for something?

[aravoth]

Aravoth..

1. Before safety regulations people died regularly from eating our and especially buying meat. You can thank the "somewhat" safe food to laws created.

2.In regards to the massive death in the workplace. In the late 1800s early 1900s there was massive death at work. We dont even have a fraction now.

3.Not for sterilization I just asked the wrong question. My question was meant to be How many children would we have in the factories today?

4.Regards to the environment. Before regulations you could literally light rivers and lakes on fire because of the pollution. We wouldnt have any state parks or protected land for us to enjoy, it would all be developed. You should of seen urban areas in the late 1800s early 1900s before the laws were put into place. Things are going downhill again though because the government is no longer enforcing the laws on the books.

Tell that to the Chinese government.

[ClayTrainor]

+100 Protecting property rights.

:)

Which is why you'll find that many of us oppose the concept of taxation.

[fisharmor]

Really?

Im not even going to answer that, the Constitution gives the government the power to protect property.

Yes, really. If it doesn't say it, then the 10th amendment explicitly denies them the power to protect property. Period.
Quit barking about the law if you're going to ignore it yourself.
The fact that so many defenders of the constitution don't bother to appeal to it properly and look down their noses at those who try to is one of the reasons I am an anarchist.


Below is an example of the Fallacy of Many Questions. By your many questions you assume that I consider these valid concerns.

Without a government would we have an interstate system?

Without a subsidized government interstate system we would still have a healthy rail system - provided that the government hadn't gone out of its way to try to kill the rail system. Meaning more urban dwellings, fewer suburbs, less sprawl, and more virgin wilderness - so don't play the environment card when it comes to the Gulf and then totally contradict yourself by extolling the interstate system as some kind of virtue.


Would it be safe to eat at a restaurant?

It would be far safer to eat at a restaurant without government interference. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre)


How many people would be dying at the work place?

While you're looking up your nonexistent constitutional mandate to protect property, you might want to also find out where it says OSHA is authorized.


How many children would we have?

Are you insinuating that population control is a government power? Really I can't see what this question has to do with government at all, unless you're in favor of eugenics programs. I'm certainly not doubting it since you're pretty much statist to the bone.


What would our landscape look like? Our environment?

It would be much more urban with a lot more virgin wilderness.


Would we still have slavery?

I believe it would be a valid contractual method for absolving debt. I see no moral problem with slavery when used for that purpose.

But all of that is meaningless, because you're entertaining "coulda, shoulda, woulda" which all mean "don't".

Any time the question "should the government" comes up, it is thinly veiled code for "is this an exception for which we are willing to threaten our fellow citizens with imprisonment in a rape dungeon for noncompliance".

[newbitech]

Once again at least you get a choice. The current tax system you get no choice. The harder you work the more you get taxed.

if you transact in FRN aka fiat aka the dollar, you have no choice. In my mind, taxes are interest payments. Don't borrow from the government, and you won't need to pay the interest.

[tjeffersonsghost]

tjeffersonsghost

No offence intended from this, but you seem to be making the same kind of arguments that I'm used to hearing from Keynsians and big government socialists...

Out of curiosity, have you read any of Ron Pauls books? He directly challenges some of the things you seem to support.

Which arguments of mine are big government and socialist?

[tremendoustie]

if you transact in FRN aka fial aka the dollar, you have no choice. In my mind, taxes are interest payments. Don't borrow from the government, and you won't need to pay the interest.


1. The government demands taxes be paid on non-FRN barter as well.

2. The government's legal tender laws preclude widespread economic activity based on metals, or other currencies.

3. The government stole everyone's gold, and otherwise forcibly foisted the fiat money system upon us.

I agree with avoiding FRNs, but the government's behavior in this matter is in no way appropriate.

[fisharmor]

Which arguments of mine are big government and socialist?

The argument that the constitution says things it doesn't actually say.... that's pretty much the definition of big government.

[Fredom101]

:)

Which is why you'll find that many of us oppose the concept of taxation.

Excellent point.

You can't say you're for property rights, and at the same time support a government that steals half of everyone's income every year (or a third, or 1%). Those are contradicting viewpoints.

Stealing is stealing, and violence is violence, no matter if the person is wearing a badge or has perceived legitimacy. There's no alternate universe of morality that I'm aware of.

[ClayTrainor]

Which arguments of mine are big government and socialist?

The reasoning you apply to the forms of taxation you approve of.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Yes, really. If it doesn't say it, then the 10th amendment explicitly denies them the power to protect property. Period.
Quit barking about the law if you're going to ignore it yourself.
The fact that so many defenders of the constitution don't bother to appeal to it properly and look down their noses at those who try to is one of the reasons I am an anarchist.


Sigh... I didnt want to answer not because it doesnt exist, but because Im trying to answer 10 people and didnt want to take the time to spell it out. So I guess I will.


First off article 8 section 1 settles the tax issue.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Under this clause laws were passed making it illegal to destroy someone elses property.

Article III Section II gives the judicial power to hold accountable these crimes via a trial by jury.


If you want to go even further then the 10th amendment gives the states the right to pass laws (which they have) in regards to property rights and protection. These laws make it illegal to steal or destroy another persons property.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Excellent point.

You can't say you're for property rights, and at the same time support a government that steals half of everyone's income every year (or a third, or 1%). Those are contradicting viewpoints.

Stealing is stealing, and violence is violence, no matter if the person is wearing a badge or has perceived legitimacy. There's no alternate universe of morality that I'm aware of.

Not contradicting. Once again a labor tax is a forced tax. A sales tax you get the choice on whether you want to pay it depending on how much crap you buy.

[Pizzo]

Not contradicting. Once again a labor tax is a forced tax. A sales tax you get the choice on whether you want to pay it depending on how much crap you buy.

So before this national sales tax comes into place, am i going to be reimbursed every single penny i've paid in the past through income tax? Or am I just going to have my savings which are what is leftover from paying federal taxes in the past taxed yet again at the checkout lines?

[tjeffersonsghost]

I'm going to pose these questions to everyone.
It's obvious none of you are for a sales tax but many of you are for a "constitutionally sized government"

So, first off if you think we should have a constitutional sized government then what is a realistic method of raising money for the constitutionally sized government? Also can you be for the constitution but be against Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1?

The second question is if you are for 0 taxes and 0 government then what is to prevent us from turning into Somalia or 13th Century Europe after the fall of Rome?

[newbitech]

1. The government demands taxes be paid on non-FRN barter as well.

2. The government's legal tender laws preclude widespread economic activity based on metals, or other currencies.

3. The government stole everyone's gold, and otherwise forcibly foisted the fiat money system upon us.

I agree with avoiding FRNs, but the government's behavior in this matter is in no way appropriate.

1.) From what I can tell, the government requires me to "assess" the value of tangible good assets in terms of dollars AND THEN pay a tax on that. We know this system can't work with a floating currency because the only way to assess at market value would be to place that assessment when those goods are actually traded for FRN's. Of course accounting rules used to have a methodology that allowed assessment based on historical valuations and asset ratings. Well that is gone now.

Now apparently assets are not required to valued until AFTER these assets are exchanged for FRN's. If the assets are never exchanged for FRN's then the assessment cannot take place, and in fact SHOULD not take place. This is neither profit nor loss. These traded goods are simply the currency themselves. For instance, if I trade you $10 bill for 10 $1 bills, there is no profit and no loss assessment. So in a sense, it is barter because it exchanges goods without a medium, however it is not a barter in the sense that the assessment is not based on a profit or loss, and certainly not on a valuation in terms of dollars.

So if I was forced to make an assessment, I would assess in terms of the exchange on my assets in a 1:1 no profit and no loss valuation. In short on the line where it says "assessed value", I will put "10 sacks of potatoes".

2.) Neither a borrower nor lender be. As long as I do not lend anything or cause anyone to go into debt with me, then legal tender laws do not apply in my commerce.

3.) Sure, but I don't care about gold. I want the stuff that you are saving up your gold for. Seeds, Soap, Shelter, Sustenance, etc etc.. later on, I might decide that I am not interested in trading my supply of food for a few gold coins. What I think fiat has done is completely distort the true supply and demand in the market. I believe with the agriculture and industrial revolutions we are able to produce such and abundance of goods and services as make profits extremely hard to come by as there is easily 1 for 1 trade in tangible goods. The scarcity has diminished to the point where governments controlled by greedy people who need to be control freaks in order to live have had to invent something that is scarce. Voila fiat..

[ClayTrainor]

Not contradicting. Once again a labor tax is a forced tax.
Sales tax is also forced.

What happens if I own a business and choose not to pay sales tax?



A sales tax you get the choice on whether you want to pay it depending on how much crap you buy.

If you choose to buy or sell anything, you will be taxed. As long as you choose to hide in a dark corner with your posessions all by yourself, you wont get taxed.

Some choice...

[tjeffersonsghost]

I'm going to pose these questions to everyone.
It's obvious none of you are for a sales tax (or any tax for that matter) but many of you are for a "constitutionally sized government"

So, first off if you think we should have a constitutional sized government then what is a realistic method of raising money for the constitutionally sized government? Also can you be for the constitution but be against Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1?

The second question is if you are for 0 taxes and 0 government then what is to prevent us from turning into Somalia or 13th Century Europe after the fall of Rome? Isnt this the same as some liberal Utopian pipe dream that without a government there would be all out peace?

[Sentient Void]

Sorry this cant be pinned on the government. If the government doesnt enforce property laws then it is malfeasance. I have the right to property without BP coming to destroy it.

If I spill oil into a stream on my property, and that stream brings oil onto other peoples' property, then I can (and rightly should) be sued to the fullest extent in regards to property damage, lost income, etc.

HOWEVER, if I'm *Big Oil*, there are federal laws that *LIMIT* my damages!

Naturally, I'm going to make *much* riskier choices than I normally would (much like BP has done in this case as investigations have shown). This is a clear-cut violation of property rights *by the government*. The government is essentially absolving them (Big Oil, BP, et al) of risk, and violating others' right to defend their own property through litigious means. Not to mention that BP is *highly* connected within the political realm, as well as has contracts with a number of special interest companies, including Halliburton.

So yes, it can and *should* be pinned on the government and such laws should be abolished. With that said, BP should still be held completely responsible for any damage they have incurred, and naturally the market has reacted very unfavorably as is to BPs mess, with wiping out 1/3 of their entire stock value in a little over a month, and the loss of 100s of millions of dollars in revenue (in lost hydrocarbons), not to mention the bad publicity.

Everything Obama and the govt is doing is absolutely political grandstanding - there's nothing they can, nor should do to stop this leak. They don't know wtf to do, naturally.

ALSO, read this, from 'Cafe Heyek'...
BP Deepwater: Some Perspective
http://cafehayek.com/2010/05/bp-deepwater-some-perspective.html

Among other interesting statistics to note about this, is this tidbit:


Even better news is the declining frequency of major oil spills. Some evidence of this healthy trend is the fact that the average time that elapsed between each of history’s top ten accidental oil spills prior to BP Deepwater was 26 months. But the amount of time between the most recent of these top-ten spills (which occurred in September 1994) and the BP Deepwater spill is 187 months. How many Americans today hear of this happy trend?

You can thank the market for such a happy trend, not the government. Us AnCaps believe (with good reason), that the market and society will handle any and all issues better than the government (an entity which is nothing more than a monopoly on force) ever can. The idea that some sort of 'power vaccuum' would result if the government were to be dissolved is not necessarily true, as AnCaps believe your supposed 'power vaccuum' would be filled by market competitors that would no longer be able to use government to gain unjustified and unnatural power as we have now.

As for your argument referencing Somalia and Anarchy, I suggest you educate yourself on the vast improvements in the economy and society in general that Somalia has made in contrast to when it was under the rule of it's previous government. You can't just say, 'Look at how shitty the situation in Somalia is under Anarchy!'. I would logically respond with - 'Compared to what?' Even now, still - there are two governments competing for rule over the Somali people, although laws, etc by these governments aren't quite enforced. The best thing I would recommend, if you truly want to understand the Somalia situation and how it has improved *significantly* in statelessness, watch this vid from Freedomain Radio and Stefan Molyneux. Watch the vid and you'll see what I'm getting at in regards to Somalia.

YouTube - True News 18: Somalia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI)

BTW, you're attacking a strawman when you say us anarcho-capitalists wish for and view such a society as a utopia. We don't believe the society will be perfect, because humanity is imperfect. We don't call for a change in human nature or human behavior - this is, however, how the liberal utopias would work and would indeed call for a change in human nature for such a society that they view to function the way their utopia hopes. AnCap philosophy doesn't want to change human nature - it glories in it. There would still be problems, but they will be minimized and handled much better by the market and society than the system we have now under government, a monopoly on force and theft. Also, *all* services the govt provides, have already been done and in many places are being done by private enterprise - except (as we all, including you know) the private sector will do it and has done it better and more effectively at a cheaper price. I highly recommend you head into the 'Philosophy' section of the forum if you want to see what's being discussed there, as I'm sure most of not all of your questions/thoughts have been covered. There's also some very good debates in there between AnCaps, minarchists, socialists, mutualists, et al.

[fisharmor]

Sigh... I didnt want to answer not because it doesnt exist, but because Im trying to answer 10 people and didnt want to take the time to spell it out. So I guess I will.

Well, with all due respect, I didn't come here picking a fight with 10 people at once.



First off article 8 section 1 settles the tax issue.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Under this clause laws were passed making it illegal to destroy someone elses property.

Are you relying on the general welfare clause? If that's the case then you are by your own admission not in favor of limiting government at all.


Article III Section II gives the judicial power to hold accountable these crimes via a trial by jury.

If you want to go even further then the 10th amendment gives the states the right to pass laws (which they have) in regards to property rights and protection. These laws make it illegal to steal or destroy another persons property.

Yes but we're not within a mile of the problem at this point. I asserted that the federal government has no authority to protect the private property which is endangered by the oil spill. You are essentially agreeing with me now by saying that the states have the authority to protect that property.


The second question is if you are for 0 taxes and 0 government then what is to prevent us from turning into Somalia or 13th Century Europe after the fall of Rome?

Well, here's an article suggesting that things are not what you think they are in Somalia:
http://mises.org/daily/2066

And I'm not sure what Europe was supposed to be like some 800 years after Rome fell.
I can tell you that there was an industrial revolution going on in Europe in the 11th-14th centuries, and that it was a period where mankind saw an increase in standard of living that I don't think was outdone until the industrial revolution of the 19th century.
It was also a time when arts and sciences were flourishing, contrary to popular opinion.

I can't find the article I was thinking of right now but there's a good bit of current research leading us to believe that we were all duped about what the medieval and Renaissance periods were all about (which isn't surprising considering how public school fed us shit about FDR, the war between the states, and just about every other topic in history).

[fisharmor]

Here's the paper I was thinking of:
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html

Gives a detailed explanation of how 13th century Europe was by far more advanced than the later Renaissance time... with the one notable exception being painting.

[constituent]

Well, there is... "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

Don't believe everything that you read. ;) :D

[Fredom101]

Not contradicting. Once again a labor tax is a forced tax. A sales tax you get the choice on whether you want to pay it depending on how much crap you buy.

Ahhh but you can't opt out of the sales tax portion of your purchase. So if you want to not pay the sales tax, you can't buy anything besides food. Sales tax is also theft.

[tremendoustie]

The second question is if you are for 0 taxes and 0 government then what is to prevent us from turning into Somalia or 13th Century Europe after the fall of Rome?

You might as well ask, if we have government what is to prevent us from turning into North Korea?

The answer to both questions: the people. The president could not be a total tyrant, because the people would not obey.

Situations with no central state that arise because of unrest do not lead to anything good -- because the people still support the idea of controlling eachother's lives and fianances with agressive violence. What we have in Somalia, and had in 13th century Europe, is lots of baby governments warring for control.

It's the same thing that happens when you take out the biggest drug cartel -- all the baby ones fight it out.

If, however, the people step away from the central state, because they do not tolerate agressive violence, and because they desire liberty, they are likely to be successful. The few gangsters around, who wish to rule over others, will have no power relative to the huge mass of people who wish to stop them.

[tremendoustie]

1.) From what I can tell, the government requires me to "assess" the value of tangible good assets in terms of dollars AND THEN pay a tax on that. We know this system can't work with a floating currency because the only way to assess at market value would be to place that assessment when those goods are actually traded for FRN's. Of course accounting rules used to have a methodology that allowed assessment based on historical valuations and asset ratings. Well that is gone now.

Now apparently assets are not required to valued until AFTER these assets are exchanged for FRN's. If the assets are never exchanged for FRN's then the assessment cannot take place, and in fact SHOULD not take place. This is neither profit nor loss. These traded goods are simply the currency themselves. For instance, if I trade you $10 bill for 10 $1 bills, there is no profit and no loss assessment. So in a sense, it is barter because it exchanges goods without a medium, however it is not a barter in the sense that the assessment is not based on a profit or loss, and certainly not on a valuation in terms of dollars.

So if I was forced to make an assessment, I would assess in terms of the exchange on my assets in a 1:1 no profit and no loss valuation. In short on the line where it says "assessed value", I will put "10 sacks of potatoes".


You can try it if you want, and I'm not saying they'd necessarily come after you, but they do demand payment.

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html)

"Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide must be included in income in the year received. "

They want to tax the value of what you recieve, period -- not the value of what you recieve minus the value of what you provide. Obviously, in a barter, that would be zero.

What's more, I own the little green pieces of paper in my wallet. If I want to trade them, it's my business, not theirs.

I don't understand why you feel the need to defend their obviously unacceptable behavior.



2.) Neither a borrower nor lender be. As long as I do not lend anything or cause anyone to go into debt with me, then legal tender laws do not apply in my commerce.


People still have a right to borrow, and to write contracts, even if you don't choose to do business this way. For a justice system, which enforces a monopoly for itself (which is wrong in the first place) to refuse to recognize such a transaction in any currency but one, is to preclude widespread use of any other.

Again, I'm glad for your agorist activities, but you're providing lame excuses for obviously abusive behavior, including blatent extortion. I don't understand why you feel the need to do so.



3.) Sure, but I don't care about gold.


So? It was the widespread currency, and they blatently stole it, in order to force everyone to use fiat. If you can't say that that's wrong, your head's screwed on backwards.



I want the stuff that you are saving up your gold for. Seeds, Soap, Shelter, Sustenance, etc etc.. later on, I might decide that I am not interested in trading my supply of food for a few gold coins. What I think fiat has done is completely distort the true supply and demand in the market. I believe with the agriculture and industrial revolutions we are able to produce such and abundance of goods and services as make profits extremely hard to come by as there is easily 1 for 1 trade in tangible goods. The scarcity has diminished to the point where governments controlled by greedy people who need to be control freaks in order to live have had to invent something that is scarce. Voila fiat..

Ok, I'm not sure I agree with that analysis 100%, but fair enough.

I'm just looking for you to condemn their blatently violent, mafiaesque behavior.

[MelissaWV]

I'm going to pose these questions to everyone.
It's obvious none of you are for a sales tax but many of you are for a "constitutionally sized government"

So, first off if you think we should have a constitutional sized government then what is a realistic method of raising money for the constitutionally sized government? Also can you be for the constitution but be against Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1?

The second question is if you are for 0 taxes and 0 government then what is to prevent us from turning into Somalia or 13th Century Europe after the fall of Rome?

Since you complain you don't have enough time to answer everyone, yet have time to pose the same question repeatedly, I suppose I'll address this. Of course, like *everything in this thread* it will be based on wishful thinking, and not reality. The reality is that we are surrounded by very well-armed tyrants and a whole lot of empty-headed sheep.

You do realize a Government, or any project for that matter, can operate fully funded? Quite simply, if a project is not funded, it does not happen. Right now it goes the other way around: we want this done, we're going to start on it, and eventually we'll figure out how much it costs and how much we'll pay for it. For now, we'll put a low-ball figure in the "budget" but we all know that won't be the extent of the monetary cost.

Why not collect funds for projects? If a school wants band uniforms, they don't generally just buy them. They do those awful fundraisers, everyone grits their teeth, and the band members themselves must foot a portion of the bill. Well? If we're going to go to war, is there something particularly wrong with selling bonds, or people donating to the war effort, or even certain corporations donating their wares to be used by the military? It seems like awesome advertising to me (and no, I don't mean massive billboards on the sides of tanks).

The problem with arguing for taxation is the fact that you are admitting the pet project in question is so unpopular and so overpriced it could not be funded other than by theft. Isn't there something inherently wrong with that? If I want to go on vacation, I could go somewhere that matches my budget, or I could book a months-long island-hopping trip that includes all manner of lavish resorts and expensive goodies... and steal from everyone in my neighborhood (well, only the middle and upper class, and slightly more from the upper class) to fund it. Which one of those seems right to you? If my neighbors don't want to give me their money for me to go on that amazing vacation, then what right do I have to say I know better than they do, what should happen with their money? What right do I have to take it? Maybe I think I have a right to take it because I go around picking up litter in the neighborhood, providing a service to all of these people. Does the Government really provide me with such luxury that it deserves half my salary? Hmm.

Another problem with taxation is that it REQUIRES value judgments. Who deserves to keep more of their money? Should there be an initial amount of income that isn't taxed, because it's seen as providing only the basics? Should everyone be taxed? Are some items too "luxurious" not to be taxed? What's a "basic"? I was writing to you earlier and got interrupted, on the subject of sales tax:


I personally would be against food and clothes being taxed. I would tax everything else. But that would be for the electorate and its elected officials to decide.

"Food" and "clothes" covers an incredibly broad range. Are you saying that a $20 pair of jeans and a $2000 pair of jeans are the same thing? Most states currently tax prepared foods and luxury foods, but just not the basics.


...None of those prices, however, can even hold a candle to that commanded by Dussault Apparel’s Trashed Denim line of luxury jeans. These men’s jeans are handmade using a special process where they are washed thirteen times, with dying and painting performed between each washing to add depth to the jeans. That’s not all, though, as each pair of Trashed Denim jeans is adorned with sixteen 1-carat rubies, twenty-six .05-carat rubies, eight .05-carat diamonds and 1080 grams of 18k white or rose gold.

So how much are the most expensive jeans in the world? Try a quarter-million dollars. That’s right; Dussault Apparel’s Trashed Denim jeans are priced at $250,000. They can be purchased at the Dussault store in Los Angeles or Kustom in New York City.

Taxation would require you to draw the line in there somewhere. At what point DOES food or clothing or shelter or transportation or whatever become "luxury"?

Of course, this would all be solved by people keeping the fruits of their labor and funding what they want/need. I have no doubt that at first, like spoiled children, people would fund their own whims and not contribute much to their fellow man or the infrastructure... but one can hope that, like children, the bulk of those sheep would band together and fix the world they live in.

Right now, we depend on elected "children" to do it, instead. It's not working out so well.

[newbitech]

You can try it if you want, and I'm not saying they'd necessarily come after you, but they do demand payment.

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html)

"Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide must be included in income in the year received. "

They want to tax the value of what you recieve, period -- not the value of what you recieve minus the value of what you provide. Obviously, in a barter, that would be zero.

What's more, I own the little green pieces of paper in my wallet. If I want to trade them, it's my business, not theirs.

I don't understand why you feel the need to defend their obviously unacceptable behavior.

The fair market value. In other words, a nominal amount. Sure I will put a number on my services. 10 potatoes. So what, you want to tax me 1 potato? I don't have cash. If you want cash, you can take my potato and exchange it for however much paper you can get for it. Me? I can't get any paper for my potato cause there isn't enough paper worth 1 potato.

You might own the paper in your pocket but you don't own the value. The point was, that if I exchange $10 dollars for 10 $1 dollars there is no profit or loss. The fair market value that I receive was $0 dollars. So when I trade my labor for your food, this is a 1 for 1 exchange. There is no difference, no market value in that exchange. So I will include as part of my income $0 for the exchange. The trade itself has no market value.

I am not defending the thieves, I am simply saying give them back their little pieces of paper with their stamp, their logo, their number and poof your interest is gone. If you play with thieves, you'll probably get ripped off. That is the reality as I see it. So I can sit here and complain about taxes, or I can simply refuse to participate. What's more, I can find ways to NOT participate that is clearly within the laws. ANYTHING can be a currency.



People still have a right to borrow, and to write contracts, even if you don't choose to do business this way. For a justice system, which enforces a monopoly for itself (which is wrong in the first place) to refuse to recognize such a transaction in any currency but one, is to preclude widespread use of any other.

Again, I'm glad for your agorist activities, but you're providing lame excuses for obviously abusive behavior, including blatent extortion. I don't understand why you feel the need to do so.

Sure, and if people borrow FRN, then they will need to pay these FRN's back. The point was that government has issues this currency by decree, the note can cancel debts public and private. However, if you as a lender or provider do not wish to transact in FRNs then simply demand payment up front in the form of a good or service and do not allow your customer to go into debt with you by "paying" with a debt instrument. If you choose to pay with debt, then just realize you are also contributing to the larger problem.

I need to cancel my debts, and for me at least, its pretty obviously that cancelling debt by government decree aka fiat aka FRN doesn't work. So, rather than curing any and all of my debts with FRN, I will ask if I can pay in full now. I have all kinds of wonderful things to offer in exchange for a debt free good or service. I will seek out business from people who accept full payment up front rather than payment via debt instruments. As a goods and service provider, I will also offer my customer with the chance to pay me in full up front, rather than issue more debt.

I am not making any excuses for anyone. I am simply telling the person who is constantly getting robbed to 1.) lock your doors 2.) get a guard dog 3.) get a gun 4.) stop dealing with thieves 5.) stay out of debt by avoiding FRN and paying for your goods in services in full.

If I was on a jury panel, you wouldn't be convicted. Keep that in mind. In the mean time, if someone has a legitimate case, I expect all the facts to be laid out. Like, how much was stolen, who stole it, how, time, motive etc etc.. I am not happy about paying taxes, this is why I avoid dealing with government money as much as possible. I think there is a reason why politician can get away with saying the income tax is voluntary. So they trick people into paying, I get that. Well now that we know the trick, lets call it out and start acting like we know what to do about it. Yes there was a thief in the house, but guess what? He got away. So lets do what any prudent person would do and make sure it doesn't happen again. Lets not get all surprised when we accept dollars from the government as our form of currency and the government decides to take some of it back. Vote the thieves out of office. File lawsuits. OR find a way to live with out the green paper.



So? It was the widespread currency, and they blatently stole it, in order to force everyone to use fiat. If you can't say that that's wrong, your had's screwed on backwards.



Ok, I'm not sure I agree with that analysis 100%, but fair enough.

I'm just looking for you to condemn their blatently violent, mafiaesque behavior.

No one was or is forced to use fiat. The problem is that people need to learn to communicate with each other better. If society without government cannot organize and figure out how to run a market without paper and without gold, then it really doesn't matter if we are under tyranny or a constitutional republic or communism.

I condemn INDIVIDUALS for their actions. I am not sure who you want me to condemn. Yes government as an institution and as I know it in my 33 years is terrible and has only gotten worse. But there are some pretty nice things about having a structure in place. First off, we have the hope that if we replace the irresponsible people who starve for power and hunger for control with people like Ron Paul, then we can get through these messes. Without that structure, we'd be killing each other off because no one would trust anyone else.

What I see as blatantly violent is stuff like the 7 year old girl getting crowned by the detroit police departments Iraq/Afghanistan styled raid. I condemn the police department for training like a military unit on a terrorist seek and destroy mission.

If you are looking for me to condemn taxes, yes I condemn taxes. That is why I have been learning how to live without FRNs. I believe if I can't live without FRNs then my problems are far worse than that of paper thieves stealing a debt instrument that I willing sweat my ass off to get. Some people feel better about having gold, some silver. For me, its food, soap, shelter, clothes etc.. All of which can be had without going into debt or trading labor for paper. So, what do I need those dollars for again?

[ChaosControl]

Tariffs or some sort of sales tax. I dont think you should tax labor. That is slavery.

Well slavery or not, its pretty screwed up. Its taxing an exchange rather than a gain. Like if I trade baseball cards with my neighbor. Trade one to him worth $50, get one worth $50 and then as a result am taxed on $50. That is how income tax works. Freaking stupid. Almost as bad as taxing people who own land just because they own it...

[tremendoustie]

I am not defending the thieves, I am simply saying give them back their little pieces of paper with their stamp, their logo, their number and poof your interest is gone ...

Ah, I misunderstood -- you're not defending their behavior, but suggesting ways to get out from under their thumb. My mistake -- and I absolutely agree with the measures you suggest. I think underground markets, agorism, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the most vital, and underutilized/underrecognized tools we have.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh geeze, who would have thought the Somalia bit would have been brought up....

If you actually research Somalia you would understand there are different regions. Each region being practically different than each. In the North for example -- Somaliland, it is in a state of Anarchy under the law of the Xeer. It is an all voluntary society, which holds private property as the highest of importance. The North is actually very peaceful, and is growing much faster, than when they were under the State (and are free to boot!). They have no 'Social' Contract, they only have contracts (Which is how it should be). You choose which entity you want to associate with. Sign me up for Liberty Law Enterprise :p

As for the middle and south of the country, yes it is in turmoil, not because it is anarchic (in fact it isn't), but because of international meddling and constant attempts from outside parties to setup transitional State-Governments. The only reason why they are in such turmoil is because everyone is fighting over who gets to control that power --- that monopoly of power inherent in the State. This area encompasses Magadishu. Whenever you hear people speak of Somalia they always only think about what they saw in Black Hawk Down. For the average person Magadishu is Somalia. It's like if you asked someone about the US and they only thought of the US as a ghetto in Detroit. It wouldn't make much sense.

In fact, Somaliland is pretty similar to Medieval Iceland and Celtic Ireland where property rights were staunchly upheld, and law was private. You could choose the 'company' you wanted to serve your law needs. There were also Common Law throughout the entirity of the country. This sprung up naturally. Natural Law afterall is the natural order. It was found in both of these societies that most areas came to the same law conclusions. This is our natural state, Anarchy. Anarchy is far from disorderly. It is not chaos. It is order. It is Natural Law.

Even with all that said, and under the quote on quote 'Chaos of Somalia' Somalia has grown and improved in their current state than what they had under the State-Government in the 80s. So even in the horrid conditions in the South and Middle regions, Somalia is still better off than they were in the 1980s. I hope Somalia fends off outside influence, and that they are left to their own self-rule.

That said, BP in a laissez-faire society would probably go bankrupt from this. They would have to restitute all aggrieved parties (property owners). As is now they just give out one lump sum, and there is no other avenue to pursue since they are in bed with Government and Government is involuntary. They get your revenue no matter what. They have no 'customer service' department. They have a rape the customer head department.

[terryhamel]

na