The "Movement" is a Chimera

[FreeTraveler]

As much as I want to believe that this truly is a movement, I'm more and more realizing it's a Chimera, focused around the support of one man.

I see calls here for Kuchinich as VP, and taxation to support this or that "right" such as education or health care.

Dr. Paul is truly libertarian in his ideals, and when I see that a good portion of the people here are really socialist in their beliefs, other than the anti-war issue, I have a hard time believing that there will be any movement left after Dr. Paul leaves the scene, if he does not get elected.

What I see happening in the future is this movement becoming "socialist lite", saying theft is OK for certain reasons.

That's HOW we got where we are today. First there's a REALLY GOOD reason to tax, then a little less good reason, then special interests... it's a PROCESS folks, and as soon as you decide it's ok to steal "for a good cause", the battle becomes about what's a good cause, not about whether it's okay to steal.

The Republicans and Democrats are both thieves, they just steal for different reasons, and they both think they're justified. If you don't understand this, you don't understand THE CORE of the Constitution and Dr. Paul's message.

I'm going to attach a poll to this message to see if the movement is a Chimera or not.

[constituent]

define the movement freetraveler.

this movement transcends politics. i think the issue is lack of
perspective on your part... not some ideological failure on the part of others.

let us clean our own houses first...

and yes, taxation is theft.

[FreeTraveler]

define the movement freetraveler.

this movement transcends politics. i think the issue is lack of
perspective on your part... not some ideological failure on the part of others.

let us clean our own houses first...

and yes, taxation is theft.

The true movement is toward freedom. People who claim to be "Social Libertarians" and support universal health care, people who think Dennis Kuchinich would be a good VP even though he supports socialistic ideals... if this group is made up largely of people with those beliefs, then we are doomed to be nothing more than Republicrats in the end.

My perspective is that there are a LOT of folks here that support those views, and if that's true, we're really just rallying around the good doctor, not forging a movement toward freedom that will outlast us all.

That is the ideological failure that I fear... that people really don't realize what freedom is.

[Dave Pedersen]

Taxation is not theft unless the revenues are given (or redistributed) to a private entity. Some taxes are constitutional and some expenditures are constitutional. The question of theft by taxation turns on the destination of the money. If an individual is taxed in a way he cannot avoid and that money is distributed to some other individual this is theft. It is commonly called the redistribution of wealth. This is one of the primary tenets of socialism. It boils down to the belief that the state owns the individual.

The federal level of government does have some few responsibilities such as defending our borders and defending individual liberties. Therefore the Federal government has every right to tax or generate revenue to finance the execution of those duties. There are taxes and tariffs which do not force anyone to pay unless they take part in a certain transaction. Those who decide to purchase gasoline may suffer a tax but no one is forced to purchase gasoline nor is anyone forced to purchase a certain amount of gasoline. Such a tax, a tax which can be avoided or minimized is preferable.

[Corydoras]

You're not going to get ideological purity.

Not all of us are supporting Ron Paul for his libertarian views.

Furthermore, I think you are wrong to make taxation the litmus test for who is good enough to be in your "the true movement."

And I think such a litmus test shows remarkably little insight into the diversity of motivations people have for supporting Ron Paul.

You can make a list of beliefs that reveal which people's votes aren't good enough for Ron Paul, but all you're revealing is that you had been fooling yourself about the nature of his support for a long time.

I mean, what are you going to do if other people don't think taxation is theft? Tell them Ron Paul doesn't need their support?

[FreeTraveler]

Taxation is not theft unless the revenues are given (or redistributed) to a private entity. Some taxes are constitutional and some expenditures are constitutional. The question of theft by taxation turns on the destination of the money. If an individual is taxed in a way he cannot avoid and that money is distributed to some other individual this is theft. It is commonly called the redistribution of wealth. This is one of the primary tenets of socialism. It boils down to the belief that the state owns the individual.

The federal level of government does have some few responsibilities such as defending our borders and defending individual liberties. Therefore the Federal government has every right to tax or generate revenue to finance the execution of those duties. There are taxes and tariffs which do not force anyone to pay unless they take part in a certain transaction. Those who decide to purchase gasoline may suffer a tax but no one is forced to purchase gasoline nor is anyone forced to purchase a certain amount of gasoline. Such a tax, a tax which can be avoided or minimized is preferable.

I agree that the government has a need to generate revenue. I do not agree that it has the right to do so at the point of a gun. I would gladly donate some portion of my income each year to provide for a national defense, and I believe most people would do so. If you don't, then how do you explain the huge outpouring of support for World War II, when people perceived their way of life as being threatened.

Taking my money to give it to a bloated Military-Industrial Complex to defend a bunch of politicians who make bad choices in their dealings with other countries is theft, however. Without the power to tax, how would GWB and his cronies have launched an unpopular war half a world away?

The police have NO obligation to protect you; the courts have ruled that way time and time again. Don't take my word for it, look it up. The legal system should be focused on restitution to the wronged party, not punishment and revenue collection for the government.

I have no problem with user fees. If the local government chooses to add charges to gasoline purchases to pay for roads, that's relatively unobtrusive and allocated to those who use the roads. FedGov has no business in the transaction.

[Minuteman]

your poll question cannot really be answered. While some taxes yes are theft, some taxes are allowed by the Constitution.

[FreeTraveler]

You're not going to get ideological purity.

Not all of us are supporting Ron Paul for his libertarian views.

Furthermore, I think you are wrong to make taxation the litmus test for who is good enough to be in your "the true movement."

And I think such a litmus test shows remarkably little insight into the diversity of motivations people have for supporting Ron Paul.

You can make a list of beliefs that reveal which people's votes aren't good enough for Ron Paul, but all you're revealing is that you had been fooling yourself about the nature of his support for a long time.

I mean, what are you going to do if other people don't think taxation is theft? Tell them Ron Paul doesn't need their support?

Ron Paul needs every bit of support he can get, even from socialists who don't understand that his message is FREEDOM... but that IS his message, and THAT is why I support him... to get government OUT of our way and to allow us to live as FREE MEN, not as wards of the state.

I realize not everyone is supporting Ron Paul for his libertarian views. That's exactly my point. I'd like to believe that this movement toward freedom will continue into the future, but it will fracture and fail if it becomes just another Republicrat clone, with people trying to decide how to cut up the pie that they steal from their neighbors. This poll is an attempt to determine what portion of his current hardcore support is comprised of freedom-loving individuals.

Taxation is THE litmus test when it comes to freedom. If you believe it's OK to steal from your neighbors to fund your pet projects, it's just a matter of deciding who to steal from, and how much, and that's what the Republicans and Democrats do today. By it's nature, once that decision is made, the trend is ALWAYS toward taking more from the producers. History shows this to be true, from the Roman Empire to present day. Believing otherwise is no different than believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

The over-reaching government we have today is the INEVITABLE RESULT of allowing theft at the point of a gun to be institutionalized under the flag of government. The seed of taxation ALWAYS grows the tree of Empire. Ron Paul understands that, as did our Founding Fathers, and if you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself.

[FreeTraveler]

your poll question cannot really be answered. While some taxes yes are theft, some taxes are allowed by the Constitution.

Slavery was once allowed by the Constitution too, but that issue has been resolved. What is taxation but part-time slavery? If the fruit of my efforts is to be surrendered, what matter if the recipient be called Master or Civil Servant?

[jorlowitz]

I'm not arguing with your broader philosophical point, but think about this practically for a second. Every year the government takes 15-30% of my income through taxes. My life goes on.

If the government decides, however, to imprison me without cause, to deny me council, to deny me notice of the charges against me, to deny me rules of evidentiary procedure, to deny me the right to challenge my accuser, to deny me the right to refuse self-incrimination, to interrogate me using tactics and techniques which cause extreme physical, mental, and emotional discomfort, disorientation, and pain, to deny my fellow citizens the right to publicize this or to assemble peacfully with whatever goals they share, to not fear or have to endure secret searches, secret courts, secret cameras, or secret abuse... that is the crux of freedom.

Taxation is negotiable when it comes to Civil Liberties, depending on whether we see the role of government as solely to protect the rights of individuals or more broadly to allow for a certain amount of perceived common good or general welfare which is deemed (correctly or incorrectly) as unachievable through mere free markets. Taxation is not the 'epitome' of freedom, for sure, but as long as I have the right to go to work freely, that the government takes a portion of my earnings is not the worst problem (in fact many see it as the price of doing business in a free society. There might be a contradiction therein, but it's nowhere near as blunt as that which is delivered by a truly tyrannical government.

That's why "socialist lite" is attracted to this movement... because you don't get to have these debates when Big Brother is in charge, libertarian or not. I wouldn't encourage you to disparage the people attracted to Ron Paul's honesty, integrity, and character. What these supporters know, is that whether or not Ron Paul is their ideological brother, that he is a lot better than what they've been getting. At worst, they'll help get him elected. Or maybe he'll change their minds.

[Captain Shays]

The true movement is toward freedom. People who claim to be "Social Libertarians" and support universal health care, people who think Dennis Kuchinich would be a good VP even though he supports socialistic ideals... if this group is made up largely of people with those beliefs, then we are doomed to be nothing more than Republicrats in the end.

My perspective is that there are a LOT of folks here that support those views, and if that's true, we're really just rallying around the good doctor, not forging a movement toward freedom that will outlast us all.

That is the ideological failure that I fear... that people really don't realize what freedom is.

Traveler,

Bravo and well said! Your comments are both timely and prescient.

Just keep putting up the best arguments that you can and in time, have faith that you will be successful in convincing others. Remember that freedom makes sense and makes its own argument. Its just that many have forgotten what freedom means and others have become complacent.

[Corydoras]

If the government decides, however, to imprison me without cause, to deny me council, to deny me notice of the charges against me, to deny me rules of evidentiary procedure, to deny me the right to challenge my accuser, to deny me the right to refuse self-incrimination, to interrogate me using tactics and techniques which cause extreme physical, mental, and emotional discomfort, disorientation, and pain, to deny my fellow citizens the right to publicize this or to assemble peacfully with whatever goals they share, to not fear or have to endure secret searches, secret courts, secret cameras, or secret abuse... that is the crux of freedom.

Thank you for saing that. I think that it is questionable whether taxation is THE defining issue. I certainly agree that civil liberties are more fundamental than taxation.

And there are many people who would argue for the primacy of the abortion issue.

[Corydoras]

Taxation is THE litmus test when it comes to freedom.

You will have a really hard time convincing me that freedom from taxation is more central to liberty than freedom of thought as threatened by the "Homegrown Terrorism" bill.

[Independent Operator]

your poll question cannot really be answered. While some taxes yes are theft, some taxes are allowed by the Constitution.

quite the contrary. "A" being "A" is not the same as "A" is justified by "B"

the fact that "B" is used to justify "A" does not change the identity of "A." "A" still equals "A"

in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: Theft is identified as taking that which is not yours without the consent of the owner.

Premise 2: The IRS takes my wealth without my consent

Conclusion: the IRS are thieves in possession of stolen property.

You see the conclusion is a must with respect to the premises. no other conclusion can be reached. the only way to dismantle the argument is by proving the premises incorrect.

well i think we can agree on the first. What about the second? Does the the IRS take my wealth? Yes, if A.) you believe you own what you earn, and the IRS takes part of what is yours. No, if B.) you believe the IRS (government) owns it and is just lending some out to you to live on.

everyone should choose "A."

You can justify something all day long, but that does not change it's identity. There may even be a good reason for a certain excise tax or something, but that again does not change its identity.

This is why you are supposed to pay attention in philosophy class!!! everybody should understand a properly formed argument devoid of emotion and whims - THAT IS WHAT DR. PAUL IS ALL ABOUT


Now all that said. I want the vote for the Doc for whatever reason one wants - just vote for him. If is the occupation, fine. If its the fed, ok. Just vote for him. now is not the time to divide the movement. lets discuss the other issues AFTER Doc is elected - there will be plenty of time for that.

Besides even after he is elected he cant just wave a wand and give us our Libertarian utopia. A whole country needs to rediscover it's roots. This will take time.

[FreeTraveler]

I'm not arguing with your broader philosophical point, but think about this practically for a second. Every year the government takes 15-30% of my income through taxes. My life goes on.

...and every year, others decide that they need just a little larger slice of your efforts, that you as an individual matter just a little less than you did the year before, that the "good of society" matters just a little more than it did the year before, until, through the inevitable erosion of belief in the sanctity of the individual leads to your next scenario...



If the government decides, however, to imprison me without cause, to deny me council, to deny me notice of the charges against me, to deny me rules of evidentiary procedure, to deny me the right to challenge my accuser, to deny me the right to refuse self-incrimination, to interrogate me using tactics and techniques which cause extreme physical, mental, and emotional discomfort, disorientation, and pain, to deny my fellow citizens the right to publicize this or to assemble peacfully with whatever goals they share, to not fear or have to endure secret searches, secret courts, secret cameras, or secret abuse... that is the crux of freedom.

...and by having believed all those years before, that a little slavery was OK as long as you weren't completely enslaved, you allowed that creeping of "the common good" to override your supremacy as an individual, each year having just a little less control over your life, until "suddenly" you have no control at all.



Taxation is negotiable when it comes to Civil Liberties, depending on whether we see the role of government as solely to protect the rights of individuals or more broadly to allow for a certain amount of perceived common good or general welfare which is deemed (correctly or incorrectly) as unachievable through mere free markets. Taxation is not the 'epitome' of freedom, for sure, but as long as I have the right to go to work freely, that the government takes a portion of my earnings is not the worst problem (in fact many see it as the price of doing business in a free society. There might be a contradiction therein, but it's nowhere near as blunt as that which is delivered by a truly tyrannical government.

As you see from the scenario above, taxation must be non-negotiable when it comes to Civil Liberties. If you lose the fruits of your efforts, what matter if the recipient be called "Master" or "Civil Servant"? Thus partial slavery is better than the rule of the tyrant, the "lesser of two evils"? What you call "the price of doing business in a free society" is called "protection money" when collected by a gang that is not the currently accepted ruling gang.



That's why "socialist lite" is attracted to this movement... because you don't get to have these debates when Big Brother is in charge, libertarian or not. I wouldn't encourage you to disparage the people attracted to Ron Paul's honesty, integrity, and character. What these supporters know, is that whether or not Ron Paul is their ideological brother, that he is a lot better than what they've been getting. At worst, they'll help get him elected. Or maybe he'll change their minds.

I could not agree more, and that is why I'm trying to make the points I'm making today. It's CRUCIALLY important for people to realize that this is NOT about degree of enslavement, it's about FREEDOM, NOW, while we have a chance to be free once again. Notice the votes above... the vast majority of those here realize that it IS a question of philosophy, NOT a question of degree.

Today, we ONLY manage to have these debates because Big Brother hasn't figured out how to control the Internet, not because we still have any freedoms left worth debating. We are not having these discussions because of any recognition of our rights. We are having these discussions because they no longer control the medium of communication. If you believe we've all been content all these years and would not have been spreading this message if we had a way to do so, you're mistaken. The revolution IS the Internet; it finally gives us a way for freedom-lovers to join together, much as the printing press did in the days before it was controlled by Big Brother.

I agree with you in many ways. However, the lesson we MUST learn from this revolution, if it is to be the last, is that if you surrender to the belief that the government has a right to your labors, you have, AT THAT INSTANT, started down the long slope that leads to loss of the Bill of Rights. From that point on, you are fighting a battle to keep a little less of your freedoms each year.

If the line is not drawn at the philosophical level, then the line becomes a matter of opinion... and opinion is ALWAYS for a little more government, a little less freedom, due to the workings of a democracy... and one day you again face the burning of the Bill of Rights and a President who derides your Constitution as "Just a goddamned piece of paper."

[FreeTraveler]

Traveler,

Bravo and well said! Your comments are both timely and prescient.

Just keep putting up the best arguments that you can and in time, have faith that you will be successful in convincing others. Remember that freedom makes sense and makes its own argument. Its just that many have forgotten what freedom means and others have become complacent.

I'm much heartened to see that at this time, 96% of those here "get it" and understand we're fighting a battle of philosophy, not one of degree.

[FreeTraveler]

Thank you for saing that. I think that it is questionable whether taxation is THE defining issue. I certainly agree that civil liberties are more fundamental than taxation.

And there are many people who would argue for the primacy of the abortion issue.

Taxation and Civil Liberties are one and the same. If you must toil for a portion of your time to pay some group "protection money," you have no Liberty.

The abortion issue is a thorny one; if you believe life begins at conception, then you must be pro-life. OTOH, I have no doubt that abortions will occur, whether in a sterile operating room or in a back alley with a coathanger. I believe that Dr. Paul's stance on moving the issue toward the local level is the correct one, and as a libertarian, I believe the issue ultimately has to be TOTALLY local... between a woman, her God, and her Doctor. In a marriage, I believe the father also has a say.

[Corydoras]

Taxation and Civil Liberties are one and the same. If you must toil for a portion of your time to pay some group "protection money," you have no Liberty.

This simply isn't true. I can do my work while thinking whatever the heck I want. Laws are now trying to monitor and control what I think. You can't see that thoughts are more fundamental than labor? What are you, a Marxist?



I believe that Dr. Paul's stance on moving the issue toward the local level is the correct one, and as a libertarian, I believe the issue ultimately has to be TOTALLY local... between a woman, her God, and her Doctor. In a marriage, I believe the father also has a say.

You don't get the point, do you? There are people who believe that the physical integrity of their bodies is more fundamental than taxation.

[Independent Operator]

Today, we ONLY manage to have these debates because Big Brother hasn't figured out how to control the Internet, not because we still have any freedoms left worth debating. We are not having these discussions because of any recognition of our rights. We are having these discussions because they no longer control the medium of communication. If you believe we've all been content all these years and would not have been spreading this message if we had a way to do so, you're mistaken. The revolution IS the Internet; it finally gives us a way for freedom-lovers to join together, much as the printing press did in the days before it was controlled by Big Brother.

This will all change IF the Doc is not elected. If Doc is not elected you will hear a collective sigh of relief out of DC.

Then the real work will begin (we cant alow that to happen again, that was close):

Lets see for starters. How about classifying sites like youtube "broadcasting corporations" and subjecting them to the same "guidelines" - for the children of course.

How about requiring all blogs to be classified as "print media" subject to all the regulations thereto.

How about taxing each and every ebay transaction - easy to do.

Oh, the things evil government types can think up.

All of these types of things will be tucked away in bills with names such as: "The Omnibus Child Online Protection Against Pornography Act" or some such stupidity.

What?? Your're not against the anti-child porn act are you??

[RP4U&ME]

Wow, there are at least 26 forum members that either don't understand the question, haven't read the Constitution, or are ideological simpletons.
Scary, whatever the excuse.

[Independent Operator]

Are you stating that you do not think taxes are theft?

[Independent Operator]

Wow, there are at least 26 forum members that either don't understand the question, haven't read the Constitution, or are ideological simpletons.
Scary, whatever the excuse.



Are you stating that you do not think taxes are theft?

[RP4U&ME]

Clearly not.
Congress has the power to levy taxes.
We the people elect our Congressman, thereby giving 'consent'.
If such basic precepts are up for debate, then yeah, maybe you guys do need your own 'movement'.
And your own island too.

[Independent Operator]

You really need to go back and read my post on the law of identity, son. you clearly do not have any clue as to what you are stating. It is intended to educate persons such as yourself. "A" is equal to "A", son.

As i recall blacks were 2/5th a person at that time in 1776. completely immoral but justified by a document.

[Independent Operator]

No matter how you justify something it doesn't change its identity.

[RP4U&ME]

Your post would be the one with the faulty premises.
And maybe you should look up the definition of 'democracy', son.

[torchbearer]

The income tax is theft because it assume the government owns your labor..or owns your self and anything the derives from it efforts. That is theft.

[torchbearer]

Also, the government has no rights beyond the rights of its citizens, If its illegal for you to take money by force from your neighbor to give to the needy, its illegal for the government to do the same.

[RP4U&ME]

Then say "Income Tax is theft."
Not "Taxation is theft".
Because yes, the right to tax income is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

[torchbearer]

Then say "Income Tax is theft."
Not "Taxation is theft".
Because yes, the right to tax income is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

I did say income tax is theft, but also showed how taking money by force to pay someone else is theft also. It's grounded in the principles of property rights. If you don't understand property rights, rights and privileges, everything you speak will be nothing but ignorance.. and will be seen as such by your peers.

[FreeTraveler]

This simply isn't true. I can do my work while thinking whatever the heck I want. Laws are now trying to monitor and control what I think. You can't see that thoughts are more fundamental than labor? What are you, a Marxist?

Try "thinking" yourself a lunch sometime. Good luck with that!

...and on that premise, it's ok to be in a prision as long as you have your thoughts?

BTW... call me a Marxist again, and it's pistols at sunrise. :D



You don't get the point, do you? There are people who believe that the physical integrity of their bodies is more fundamental than taxation.

I can't tell if you're arguing this from the standpoint of the mother, or the child... which is why it should really go ALL the way local; to a decision between the woman and her doctor.

[Independent Operator]

Your post would be the one with the faulty premises.
And maybe you should look up the definition of 'democracy', son.

How about instead of being childish you engage in a discussion.

Clearly you stated you think my premise is incorrect. Please explain why. I will be waiting for you scholarly reply as to why you disagree.

I take it you disagree with the "law of identity" then as well. You clearly sound like a very thoughtful person: What are your thought on Aristotle, also while you are at it I'm curious as to you thoughts on Thomas Jefferson's version of Aristotelian Logic and how it applies to the Constitution he penned.

EDIT: also if by "democracy" you mean: you voting to take my wealth - sorry, still theft. A is A

[FreeTraveler]

This will all change IF the Doc is not elected. If Doc is not elected you will hear a collective sigh of relief out of DC.

Then the real work will begin (we cant alow that to happen again, that was close):

Lets see for starters. How about classifying sites like youtube "broadcasting corporations" and subjecting them to the same "guidelines" - for the children of course.

How about requiring all blogs to be classified as "print media" subject to all the regulations thereto.

How about taxing each and every ebay transaction - easy to do.

Oh, the things evil government types can think up.

All of these types of things will be tucked away in bills with names such as: "The Omnibus Child Online Protection Against Pornography Act" or some such stupidity.

What?? Your're not against the anti-child porn act are you??

THIS is EXACTLY why I started this discussion. It's wonderful to find out that so many understand this is a battle for the future of America, not just another political campaign.

[RP4U&ME]

Civilized societies throughout history have realized the benefit of pooling a portion of their resources together for the greater good. We agree to be taxed.
If you don't like a particular tax, you have representatives and the power of your vote to voice your disapproval. Saying you don't like it and don't want to pay, so you shouldn't have to, is a line of argument not much different than saying you should have the freedom to beat someone up or kill them if you want to.
We all agree on the sanctity of individual liberties, but to live within a society you can only take them so far before your fellow citizens are compelled to put you in check. For the greater good.

[FreeTraveler]

Wow, there are at least 26 forum members that either don't understand the question, haven't read the Constitution, or are ideological simpletons.
Scary, whatever the excuse.

Slavery was once allowed by the Constitution too, but that issue has been resolved. What is taxation but part-time slavery? If the fruit of my efforts is to be surrendered, what matter if the recipient be called Master or Civil Servant?

[FreeTraveler]

Clearly not.
Congress has the power to levy taxes.
We the people elect our Congressman, thereby giving 'consent'.
If such basic precepts are up for debate, then yeah, maybe you guys do need your own 'movement'.
And your own island too.

So where's your signature on that contract? That's what I thought, mine neither. Consent is not a matter of geography, only statists believe that. Consent is a matter of contractual law.

BTW, everything Hitler did was "legal" on paper too.

[FreeTraveler]

Your post would be the one with the faulty premises.
And maybe you should look up the definition of 'democracy', son.

What's the "d" word got to do with it? Last time I looked, we live in a Republic, not a democracy.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep debating the vote." - Ben Franklin

[RP4U&ME]

How about instead of being childish you engage in a discussion.

Clearly you stated you think my premise is incorrect. Please explain why. I will be waiting for you scholarly reply as to why you disagree.

EDIT: also if by "democracy" you mean: you voting to take my wealth - sorry, still theft. A is A

OK, so I'm the one being childish?

Your premises are flawed because they assume no consent.
But there is consent. So end of argument.

[FreeTraveler]

Civilized societies throughout history have realized the benefit of pooling a portion of their resources together for the greater good. We agree to be taxed.
If you don't like a particular tax, you have representatives and the power of your vote to voice your disapproval. Saying you don't like it and don't want to pay, so you shouldn't have to, is a line of argument not much different than saying you should have the freedom to beat someone up or kill them if you want to.
We all agree on the sanctity of individual liberties, but to live within a society you can only take them so far before your fellow citizens are compelled to put you in check. For the greater good.

Wow... government school? You're so lost I don't even know where to start.

"We agree to be taxed." Don't know about you, kimosabe, but I never gave my consent to any such thing.

Equating tax resistance to murder shows that you have no clue about self-ownership, the sanctity of the individual or the Zero Agression Principle. Watch this little flash animation, then come back and we'll have a reasoned discussion.

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

[FreeTraveler]

OK, so I'm the one being childish?

Your premises are flawed because they assume no consent.
But there is consent. So end of argument.

Where's the consent? Because I was born in a particular place I consent to let some gang direct my life? So if you'd been born Jewish in Germany in the 30's, you'd be cool with what the majority decided?

[thuja]

i have commented for kuchinich as a vp. i liked him before i heard of rp. i knew nothing at all about politics except it's generally evil. i thought RP as President could sort out kuchinich on the ideas he has that are not as useful. i like the word chimera.

[Corydoras]

Try "thinking" yourself a lunch sometime. Good luck with that!

There are entire industries dependent on freedom of thought. You have nothing substantial to make your case that everything that is important is purely temporal and/or physical.



I can't tell if you're arguing this from the standpoint of the mother, or the child... which is why it should really go ALL the way local; to a decision between the woman and her doctor.

You're simply not understanding that for people for whom abortion is a really important issue, the right to physical integrity is much more important than rights to other property.

[FreeTraveler]

There are entire industries dependent on freedom of thought. You have nothing substantial to make your case that everything that is important is purely temporal and/or physical.

I never said that, and I'm sorry you got that impression. As a free person, you have the right to think as you choose, and to enjoy the fruits of your labor that are generated by those thoughts. Thoughts lead to action; denying the fruits of those actions are the ultimate denial of those thoughts, and can lead to death.
If I'm hungry and I decide to climb a tree for a banana, then you steal my banana, I starve. If I don't think of climbing the tree, I starve. It's all inter-related.

On edit: I went back and reread your posts, and I see where you're coming from. My argument isn't that free thought isn't critical, but it's much harder for the government to control your thoughts than to steal the fruits of those thoughts once you've solidified them and put them into practical use. In one sense, taxation IS the theft of your thoughts. If you dream up a new widget and get rich from it, why should somebody be able to steal part of what you earned with your thoughts?



You're simply not understanding that for people for whom abortion is a really important issue, the right to physical integrity is much more important than rights to other property.
Nope, I must be dense here, because I still haven't figured out if you're pro-choice or pro-life. I happen to be pro-liberty, and believe it's up to each woman and her doctor, and has no place in the political process.

[FreeTraveler]

i have commented for kuchinich as a vp. i liked him before i heard of rp. i knew nothing at all about politics except it's generally evil. i thought RP as President could sort out kuchinich on the ideas he has that are not as useful. i like the word chimera.

Glad to have you aboard. Dennis thinks it's OK to take what you earn from you and use it for "the greater good". Stay tuned to this discussion, and you'll learn why some of us consider that a very evil idea.

[RP4U&ME]

Ok, thanks, I think I get where you're coming from.
Yeah, if you take consent as meaning literally your own personal consent, than I can see what you're arguing. You should have said that you only believe in the parts of the Constitution that you agree with, and oh-by-the-way, you didn't sign it anyway.
Options for change for you don't look too bright. You can either work within the current system that you hate to effect change by electing officials that you believe support your view (good luck with that, RP doesn't go that far), or you can move to another state that has the high level of regard for personal property rights that you crave(better luck).

[Independent Operator]

OK, so I'm the one being childish?

Your premises are flawed because they assume no consent.
But there is consent. So end of argument.


Wow, I consented to having my wealth taken. When did i do that?

Actually p2 clearly states "without my consent" not assumed...stated.

next.

You make no sense trying to argue the unarguable. Just admit that you're simple trying justify, because you can not re-define. A is A. It is a Natural Law that can not be bent by your will. Gravity exists my friend.

That is that.

[thuja]

Glad to have you aboard. Dennis thinks it's OK to take what you earn from you and use it for "the greater good". Stay tuned to this discussion, and you'll learn why some of us consider that a very evil idea.

thanks. i already consider anything done "for the greater good" as at least very suspicious. i am not for communism.

[jorlowitz]

You don't get the point, do you? There are people who believe that the physical integrity of their bodies is more fundamental than taxation.

This discussion seems to be raising meaningless distinctions. If you are a libertarian then you believe the government should never violate your life, body, property (including labor and its profits), thoughts, liberty, etc... There is no KEY or REAL issue. An infringement of personal liberty is an infringement of personal liberty. The only reason the taxation issue would be any different is because work being necessary for survival there is no way to legally escape taxation. The same can be said, however, for a government that has the right to imprison you when it deems you a threat (you liberty is compromised pre-emptively there as well, because your freedom is contingent on the government effectively liking you). I can see an arguable difference because taxes apply to everyone whereas violations of civil liberties only affect the unlucky individual... but who's counting? One is systematic, institutional, and survivable... the other is tyrannical, secretive, and possibly fatal. I still think you can be against either one or both of them and support Ron Paul.

[Mesogen]

The income tax is theft and property taxes are theft, but excise taxes and tariffs are not, IMO.

[FreeTraveler]

Ok, thanks, I think I get where you're coming from.
Yeah, if you take consent as meaning literally your own personal consent, than I can see what you're arguing. You should have said that you only believe in the parts of the Constitution that you agree with, and oh-by-the-way, you didn't sign it anyway.
Options for change for you don't look too bright. You can either work within the current system that you hate to effect change by electing officials that you believe support your view (good luck with that, RP doesn't go that far), or you can move to another state that has the high level of regard for personal property rights that you crave(better luck).

We're talking philosophy here, and I don't expect to see a truly free society in my lifetime... but if I don't understand the underlying premises of freedom, I can't be consistent in my efforts toward obtaining true freedom for myself and my heirs.

If someone believes the state has a right to my life, how can they eat more than 1000 calories a day or live in anything better than a hovel without dying from the guilt?

I believe that my life is my responsibility, and I am entitled to the rewards that I earn, as well as the responsibility to take care of myself. I live consistent with that philosophy, bounded by restrictions forced on me by the state.

That's why I have no respect for politicians who spout a "for the good of society" philosophy, yet live in huge expensive homes, never miss a meal, and devote their life to stealing from Productive Peter to feed Paul.

[FreeTraveler]

The income tax is theft and property taxes are theft, but excise taxes and tariffs are not, IMO.

I have less of an issue with excise taxes myself, because any government at all is going to need revenue to perform services, and if I avail myself of those services, I should be paying a user fee of some sort. Gasoline taxes (more properly user fees) are one example of that. Some anarcho-capitalists argue that all roads should be toll roads, and that police and courts should be self-sustaining. I agree on the police and courts, and think that with the recent gains in technology such as speed passes, toll roads might one day move the costs closer to the user and encourage more competition in transportation modes.

Arguably, we'd have much better mass transit today if the government hadn't subsidized automobiles and trucks extensively in the 40's, 50's and 60's, right up to present day.

Tariffs are still taxes, IMHO. They force you to pay more of your wealth for a product than you would otherwise, and the funds raised by the tariff are spent in ways that you may not choose yourself.

[ecliptic]

You're not going to get ideological purity.

The unstoppable force that is brewing here is much greater than Ron Paul. He is safe because there are now thousands who are already running or building a run for political office. There are millions who are frantically learning about monetary policy and early American history. This is soooooo much bigger than one guy...

... and the gi-normously huge nature of The Restoration .... the "huge tent" aspect of this "thing" .... means ideological purity is unattainable. Freedom is messy. The movement for the Restoration of the Constitution grows exponentially. We are legion.

[Corydoras]

Equating tax resistance to murder shows that you have no clue about self-ownership, the sanctity of the individual or the Zero Agression Principle. Watch this little flash animation, then come back and we'll have a reasoned discussion.

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf


I don't often feel like giving up on a thread, but I'm going to step away from this one, at least for a while.

There are many people who are not libertarians who are backing Ron Paul. I am one of them. If you push the point too far, then many, many people like me are going to leave the Ron Paul movement. If I wanted to support an ideological libertarianism, I would be a Libertarian. I don't and I'm not.

I also think this is the wrong time to raise this issue. Our goal now should be getting Ron Paul elected, and not on insisting on ideological purity among his supporters.

[Corydoras]

the gi-normously huge nature of The Restoration .... the "huge tent" aspect of this "thing" .... means ideological purity is unattainable. Freedom is messy. The movement for the Restoration of the Constitution grows exponentially. We are legion.

I hear ya!

But the way things are shaping up, I do not want there to be a split between people who want to focus on the restoration of the American Constitution versus people who believe in a nationless, ahistorical libertarian ideology.

[Captain Shays]

The income tax is theft because it assume the government owns your labor..or owns your self and anything the derives from it efforts. That is theft.



How simple can this get?

To amplify your statements consider that if I have four quarters and you have a paper dollar and we both agree that the value of them is the same, if we engage in an exchange,neither of us has gained anything. There was no "income".

Well if what you say is true, which it is, then you being the owners of your labor places a value for doing a certain task, you have not "gained" and "income". You have simply exchanged your labor for something of equal value that I would pay you either in money or something else.

I hope you don't see this as stepping on your toes. I just wanted to agree with you.

[MsDoodahs]

Have not read the thread, just the original poll question and first post.

Taxation is theft, and therefore immoral. :)

[FreeTraveler]

I hear ya!

But the way things are shaping up, I do not want there to be a split between people who want to focus on the restoration of the American Constitution versus people who believe in a nationless, ahistorical libertarian ideology.

None of us want that, but it's important to understand the underlying philosophy of government if you want to see substantive change, instead of accepting Obama because he says he'll "change" things. As for libertarian ideology being nationless and ahistorical, if you learn about the Founding Fathers, they were attempting in the Constitution to create as close to a libertarian central government as they felt was possible at the time... and this was before the term "libertarian" had been coined.

[Captain Shays]

Jefferson's definition of liberty

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[RonPaulalways]

I don't believe socialists make up the core of this movement. I believe that the main contingent of this movement that is creating momentum believes in the best principles (constitutionally limited government, individual liberty).

[kalami]

Slavery was once allowed by the Constitution too, but that issue has been resolved. What is taxation but part-time slavery? If the fruit of my efforts is to be surrendered, what matter if the recipient be called Master or Civil Servant?

So what about the fruits of your labor that are surrendered because you have to pay more money for orange juice due to frost cutting into supplies? Are you a slave to weather now? I guess the argument to that though is that you can't control weather but taxes are created by people and you can control people?

[FreeTraveler]

I don't believe socialists make up the core of this movement. I believe that the main contingent of this movement that is creating momentum believes in the best principles (constitutionally limited government, individual liberty).

Yep, 85% at the moment. I'm very pleased at the results. :)

[MsDoodahs]

So what about the fruits of your labor that are surrendered because you have to pay more money for orange juice due to frost cutting into supplies? Are you a slave to weather now? I guess the argument to that though is that you can't control weather but taxes are created by people and you can control people?

Goons with guns don't come to your door if you CHOOSE not to buy higher priced OJ. Don't pay your taxes and eventually, goons with guns enter the picture.

[Abegweit]

85% at the moment. I'm very pleased at the results. :)Well, I'm not. While of course I agree with the proposition, I was hoping that there were more people than just us hardcore loonies. :p

There are more important issues than the question of what kind of taxation, if any, constitutes theft. The murder of millions of foreigners who have done nothing to harm us, the outrageous attack on our civil liberties at home, the war on (some) drugs, the destruction of our money... these are all more important than taxation. These are the real problems and indeed they the ones that that Ron Paul intends to tackle.

In fact, the main reason why taxation is important is not because of the theft (I can live on the half of my money they let me keep) but because they use it to commit such heinous crimes.

[davver]

In fact, the main reason why taxation is important is not because of the theft (I can live on the half of my money they let me keep) but because they use it to commit such heinous crimes.

When they can take it without asking you, the fact that it is spent on things you don't like is INEVITABLE. After all, what are you going to do about it?

[RonPaulalways]

So what about the fruits of your labor that are surrendered because you have to pay more money for orange juice due to frost cutting into supplies? Are you a slave to weather now? I guess the argument to that though is that you can't control weather but taxes are created by people and you can control people?

kalami, rights are created by social contract, and so can only involve social players. You cannot create a contract with the weather to guarantee you non-frost days.

[Abegweit]

After all, what are you going to do about it?I don't believe that there is anything I can do about it. The state arose because of technology; when it dies it will be for the same reason. The Ron Paul movement gives me hope that the Internet might just be that technology. I had kinda given up on that thought about two years ago; perhaps I was wrong... And maybe as we become stronger, we won't be so dependent on a single man either.


When they can take it without asking you, the fact that it is spent on things you don't like is INEVITABLE. It's actually worse than that. It is inevitable that the money be spent on criminal activities, whether I approve of them or not. You see, the purpose of taxation is theft. This is a different point than the question asked in the poll and, to my mind, a more important one.

The state is not a bunch of people getting together to build roads, care for the poor, protect rights or whatever. It is a criminal gang whose purpose is to provide a livelihood for thieves. This was obvious in the days of Kings and Queens but it hasn't changed simply because we vote for the thief in chief.

The only way that the modern democratic state can get people to tolerate it is to invent demons to chase and to fight wars against them. The only thing the state has ever been competent at is fighting wars. Today we fight wars against Nouns. War against Terr, War Against Poverty, War Against Drugs, War Against Child Abuse, War Against Drunk Driving. War. War. War.

We never win these wars but that is irrelevant because the purpose of the state is theft. In fact we can't. How would the thieves make a living if we won?

Ron Paul wants to dismantle some of the more egregious parts of the machine. For that I support him. What he does with the money he saves is almost a secondary consideration. Saving the Old Age Ponzi Scheme is OK. Even paying down the so-called debt to the thieving bankers is better than using it to murder innocents.

[FreeTraveler]

kalami, rights are created by social contract, and so can only involve social players. You cannot create a contract with the weather to guarantee you non-frost days.

Not to be too picky, but natural rights exist prior to ANY social contract.

One discussion, at http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html



Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property.

However, not all men chose to live within the confines of the natural laws and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract (compact) in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society. Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

[RonPaulalways]

^ Agreed. I believe there is a natural social contract between individuals (don't steal, attack, coerce etc others) which relates to these natural rights.

[OptionsTrader]

flawed poll. cannot vote.

[RP4U&ME]

Wow, I consented to having my wealth taken. When did i do that?

Actually p2 clearly states "without my consent" not assumed...stated.

next.

You make no sense trying to argue the unarguable. Just admit that you're simple trying justify, because you can not re-define. A is A. It is a Natural Law that can not be bent by your will. Gravity exists my friend.

That is that.

You're kidding right?
Again, your premises are wrong. Consent is given. Not your specific individual literal consent, but the consent of the majority. How many laws do you personally get consulted for the OK on? You realize the benefits of taxation every day all around you and take them for granted, and you're lucky for it. Because the wisdom of the many outweighs the folly of the few like you.
If all you got out of your Philosophy 101 course is a fondness for syllogistic gymnastics, I suggest you either retake the course or ask for your money back.

[FreeTraveler]

You're kidding right?
Again, your premises are wrong. Consent is given. Not your specific individual literal consent, but the consent of the majority. How many laws do you personally get consulted for the OK on? You realize the benefits of taxation every day all around you and take them for granted, and you're lucky for it. Because the wisdom of the many outweighs the folly of the few like you.
If all you got out of your Philosophy 101 course is a fondness for syllogistic gymnastics, I suggest you either retake the course or ask for your money back.
I do not surrender my consent to the consent of the majority.

So if Hillary gets elected and implements all her disasters you'll just go along?

So Dauchau was OK because the majority of German people were OK with it?

[Antonius Stone]

taxation by the FEDERAL gov't is theft

taxation by the states is OK, simply because its so much easier to control within the states. You have more representatives per amount of population, there's likely to be more citizen oversight, the State Capitol is almost always closer to your home than DC and then theres the State Referendum.

[FreeTraveler]

taxation by the FEDERAL gov't is theft

taxation by the states is OK, simply because its so much easier to control within the states. You have more representatives per amount of population, there's likely to be more citizen oversight, the State Capitol is almost always closer to your home than DC and then theres the State Referendum.

Uh... No. By that theory, the crook in the alleyway that sticks a gun in your ribs because he doesn't have money for a sandwich is the most proper government of all.

[constituent]

Consent is given. Not your specific individual literal consent, but the consent of the majority... Because the wisdom of the many outweighs the folly of the few like you.

....

If all you got out of your Philosophy 101 course is a fondness for syllogistic gymnastics, I suggest you either retake the course or ask for your money back.

1. you mean this isn't a republic? someone should tell dr. paul

2. then you close for the thread as you opened, w/ ad hominem... hey,
guess it's all you've really got.

[Antonius Stone]

Uh... No. By that theory, the crook in the alleyway that sticks a gun in your ribs because he doesn't have money for a sandwich is the most proper government of all.

what state are you from? You can keep your tax free state and I'll have the taxes in mine. and if you don't like it then move to New Hampshire.

the point is that Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and a Federalist before he is a libertarian, so he can't impose libertarianism on the individual states and I think that is the most appealing part of his position and this revolution.
That's why this is movement is turning into a "big tent"- Ron Paul isn't telling people what they can and cant do, he's just telling them what the federal government can't do. That's why he is appealing to big government liberals, social conservatives and libertarians alike. All these people tend to be geographically distributed so having a one-size-fits all rule from the Federal government going on down is definitely going to make some people happy and others unhappy.

By decentralizing it and leaving it to the states (and ultimately the people; popular referendum, hello?) that gives people that want to live in cloistered societies with no abortion, sunday blue laws, etc etc the opportunity to do just that. It also gives the people that want to live in a socialist system the opportunity to do that as well. You have to respect the differences that exist amongst the states. The reason why there are so many people that are hurting and upset right now is because the Federal government has failed to respect that for the past 150 or so years now.

The federal government, its laws, its regulations and its taxes are extremely arbitrary and for the most part do not serve the interests of the individuals. The state governments on the other hand are far more democratic and far more receptive to change.
If the state of California wants Universal Socialized Medicine then let them try it. If it works, praise god. If it doesn't, then thank god that it wasn't implemented on the federal level so that it could hurt everyone in the country. And thank god they can have a referendum to put it down as soon as it becomes clear that its not helping. Add in the fact that States have a popular recall and it becomes really clear that officials that rob the state gov't are very accountable to the people.

The main reason why failures like Gray Davis and Mike Huckabee come to power in the states is because people haven't been paying as much attention to their state governments because for the past 90 or so years, all their money's been going to the FED and we've been having all these stupid international wars. end that and restore states' rights.

and respect the fact that the states have the rights to implement systems that you might consider to be "stupid". and if you still hate your states' income tax then move to new hampshire.

[Dr.3D]

Humm... I received this in my email the other day. Perhaps it is simplistic but effective for talking to people who don't understand socialism.

Conservative Father/Liberal Daughter Talk




A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that
would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

[NMCB3]

Income taxation and property tax are most certainly theft. If you do not own the fruits of your labor or your property what do you own? Property rights are an essential part of individual liberty. The Constitution is a tortured document, it has been twisted to mean anything the govt wants it to mean. The courts have effectively neutered it. For example the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, but the courts have ruled that conscription is constitutional! I`m not a lawyer but being forced into the military against your will is certainly involuntary servitude. Also the average American works from January to May just to pay his federal taxes. On this plantation you are effectively a slave for five months of the year. Your master will let you keep your income from June through December. However he will steal more of your wealth in more indirect ways such as inflation.

[PHenry]

Taxes on income and estates are definitely theft...

[xao]

Ron Paul is .......... a Federalist

When did he join the federalist party that many of the founders were against?

Ron is a REPUBLICAN. It's the last time I will say it. If people don't understand then they are mentally challenged.

[Independent Operator]

Not your specific individual literal consent, but the consent of the majority. How many laws do you personally get consulted for the OK on? You realize the benefits of taxation every day all around you and take them for granted, and you're lucky for it. Because the wisdom of the many outweighs the folly of the few like you.


WOW!!! I'm guessing that you are not a supporter of Liberty.

You are digging yourself deeper and destroying your credibility with every comment.

I don't need to type another word on the subject; your last post says all we need to know.

So, this is the last I will Type on THAT subject as it has been exhausted to death. You are either disingenuous or really ignorant. I can't force you out of your ignorance of the subject. So it serves no purpose to continue.

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

All that said. It Begs the question: Why are you a Dr. Paul Supporter??

You don't seem to agree with him - or is it a single issue?? Because that gets back to the original "Chimera" issue.

You do know, of course, that Dr. Paul is a Libertarian don't you?? You do know that he ran for President in 1988, don't you?? You do know that Dr. Paul disagrees with every last word that you have typed??

[GunnyFreedom]

The true movement is toward freedom. People who claim to be "Social Libertarians" and support universal health care, people who think Dennis Kuchinich would be a good VP even though he supports socialistic ideals... if this group is made up largely of people with those beliefs, then we are doomed to be nothing more than Republicrats in the end.

My perspective is that there are a LOT of folks here that support those views, and if that's true, we're really just rallying around the good doctor, not forging a movement toward freedom that will outlast us all.

That is the ideological failure that I fear... that people really don't realize what freedom is.

Not everyone who supports RP is a hard-core libertarian like we are. There are many who support RP and like Kucinich, not because DK is 'libertarian' but because he is constitutionalist.

Do not think that merely because RP attracts *both* libertarians and constitutionalists (of which I happen to be both) means that he *shouldn't* attract liberal constitutionalists (ie Kucinich) and conservative constitutionalists (ie Gingritch) as well as Libertarians.

The core of RP's support indeed comes from libertarians, while also drawing constitutionalists from both sides of the L-R spectrum. Now, while the Constitution is a very libertarian document, do not think that just because someone is a constitutionalist automatically implies that they are libertarian.

Myself, I have always been a constitutionalist libertarian, I voted 'yes' that taxation is theft. I would caveat that to say that some taxations are not -- excise tax, use tax, some tariffs, and so on; while income and property taxes are obviously and obscenely theft.

Point being, while RP is a huge bonus for the Liberty movement, he also draws constitutionalists from without the liberty movement. This can only be a good thing. say 70% of RP supporters are libertarian minded, with 15% leftist constitutionalists, and 15% rightist constitutionalists.

In no way, shape, or form can that be a 'bad thing' for the liberty movement. IMHO

[RonPaulalways]

I am a libertarian but I am not 100% sure that it is pure libertarianism is the best form of government, that is why I like the federated model espoused by the Constitution which gives each region the freedom to decide for itself what kind of government to form, and gives people the freedom to relocate to any State in the Union they want.

[RP4U&ME]

WOW!!! I'm guessing that you are not a supporter of Liberty.

You are digging yourself deeper and destroying your credibility with every comment.

I don't need to type another word on the subject; your last post says all we need to know.

So, this is the last I will Type on THAT subject as it has been exhausted to death. You are either disingenuous or really ignorant. I can't force you out of your ignorance of the subject. So it serves no purpose to continue.

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

All that said. It Begs the question: Why are you a Dr. Paul Supporter??

You don't seem to agree with him - or is it a single issue?? Because that gets back to the original "Chimera" issue.

You do know, of course, that Dr. Paul is a Libertarian don't you?? You do know that he ran for President in 1988, don't you?? You do know that Dr. Paul disagrees with every last word that you have typed??


You're screwing up yet again. When did Dr. Paul advocate zero taxation? Zero taxation equates to Liberty? Bring on the faulty premises.
You probably also mistakenly believe that zero taxation on your wealth will result in your being wealthier. Since you can't even grasp basic civics concepts, I won't even attempt to get into economics with you.
We figured out as a species the benefits of cooperation back in hunter-gatherer times. What you advocate is a devolution to pre-prehistory. Fine. If you need help moving into that bubble of yours, give a shout-out, I'll be the first in line to give you a hand.
Otherwise I'm done with you, you've been in checkmate, and you're a total waste of my time.

[Independent Operator]

You're screwing up yet again. When did Dr. Paul advocate zero taxation? Zero taxation equates to Liberty? Bring on the faulty premises.
You probably also mistakenly believe that zero taxation on your wealth will result in your being wealthier. Since you can't even grasp basic civics concepts, I won't even attempt to get into economics with you.
We figured out as a species the benefits of cooperation back in hunter-gatherer times. What you advocate is a devolution to pre-prehistory. Fine. If you need help moving into that bubble of yours, give a shout-out, I'll be the first in line to give you a hand.
Otherwise I'm done with you, you've been in checkmate, and you're a total waste of my time.


dig my new sig

[Independent Operator]

...and again :D

[Independent Operator]

you words can stand. even your last post is, well...... :rolleyes: buh- buy :D

did i forget to tell you to check my sig :D

[RP4U&ME]

Hehe.
On Friday a bunch of guys are coming in a truck to haul away all the refuse on my block, and without my explicit consent. Thank you taxes! Maybe I'll make a copy of your posts and add them to the pile. Or would I need your consent for that?
Put that in your sig and smoke it.

[Wendi]

I can't vote in your poll, because I believe it is over-simplified. The income tax, as it is currently applied to individuals, is blatantly unconstitutional and is government sanctioned theft of our wages and labor. As such it is also a form of slavery. However, not all forms of taxation fit this definition. I hope that answers your question.

[GunnyFreedom]

One point I want to stress, is that there are many forms of legal taxation, which are even acceptable under libertarian philosophies. Any tax that one can personally and legally avoid without undue hardship conforms with libertarian philosophies -- for instance an interstate commerce tax, tariffs, excises, user fees etc. Then, any tax that is apportioned is legal by the Constitution.

The argument against income and property taxes are much deeper than legality and amounts. Income tax assumes that the government owns the individual and their product, and only allows the individual to 'produce' at their permission. Property tax assumes that the government owns all property and only allows the individual to hold property at their permission.

Sales tax is more of a grey area, libertarian-wise. Something like gasoline tax paying for roads, a(n albeit weak) case can be made that "commerce" is a line of communication upon which the government has authority, due to the use of Treasury notes to affect said commerce. This assumes that the government has a stake of ownership in all commercial transaction, (which is why it's grey) but a valid argument can be made that a federal government DOES have a stake in the general notion of 'commercial transaction' simply because there is a "gross domestic product" supported by the US Treasury system. The use of Treasury notes in order to produce commercial transactions, is what gives legal claim to a stake here, and can be avoided by barter outside of US Treasury notes. Also, sales tax can be avoided, and the government can be de-funded, simply by the people choosing not to buy things commercially (ie - barter).

If stuck with a sales tax, my "perfect world" would be to employ something somewhat radical -- tax not sales themselves, but the use of treasury notes specifically. Of curse, this would require a radical change in the US Treasury department. First of all, money would have to be taken out of the Federal Reserve and returned to the US Treasury. Somehow, tax would have to be distinguished between coinage, paper, and electronic transactions. All of this of course, would be a bloody nightmare to even attempt to implement; but would permit an "opt-out" system without restricting commerce. If, for instance, coinage were based on precious metal value and taxed at zero percent of transaction, electronic transactions were based on precious metal holdings and taxed at 7%, and paper money (based on precious metal certification holdings) taxed at 14%, for instance. The more heavily you rely on the governments "services" the higher the tax you pay. I'm not saying that's a 'good' system (I just invented it on the fly as I typed) but it would be a 'sales tax' that managed to dovetail with libertarian principles...especially if the coinage based on precious metals minted coins that reached as high as $100 for instance. Thus people could choose to use all coins, or all paper. Paper would be easier to trade in, but it puts a higher burden on the Treasury.

[dircha]

On what principled basis do you declare that all taxation is theft?

God ordained taxation to finance the Old Testament theocratic state.

God through the Holy Spirit enforced collectivist resource distribution in the early apostolic church.

And the Constitution authorizes two forms of taxation.

Congressman Ron Paul is against unconstitutional taxation, not all taxation.

[joelfarm]

I voted 'yes' that taxation is theft. I would caveat that to say that some taxations are not -- excise tax, use tax, some tariffs, and so on; while income and property taxes are obviously and obscenely theft.

Confiscatory Property taxes is one that makes my blood boil. The mindset that any government entity can levy what is essentially 'Rent', to us, to allow us to have controll over what we own is ludicrous. I damn our parents for letting government accumilate this much power.

[Malakai0]

The true movement is toward freedom. People who claim to be "Social Libertarians" and support universal health care, people who think Dennis Kuchinich would be a good VP even though he supports socialistic ideals... if this group is made up largely of people with those beliefs, then we are doomed to be nothing more than Republicrats in the end.

My perspective is that there are a LOT of folks here that support those views, and if that's true, we're really just rallying around the good doctor, not forging a movement toward freedom that will outlast us all.

That is the ideological failure that I fear... that people really don't realize what freedom is.

Most of the RP supporters I've met at events have an amazing understanding of our political/financial system and the issues. I don't think your giving us enough credit =)


People like Kuchinich because he is one of the only other members of congress to not get corrupted by special interests and their $$$, and his support for Iraq withdrawl.

Also him and his wife are very intelligent, compassionate people.



We are just lucky we have RP, and can support a candidate that practically mirrors 100% of our belief in freedom instead of having to take the next best thing. If there was no Ron Paul I would have registered dem and voted for Kuchinich in their primary. I'd rather an honest man who truly believes an honest socialistic society could work (and who would *actually* end the Iraq war) over a fake proclaiming the joys of freedom and liberty while their campaign is paid for by the special interests.

[Alex Libman]

We pay taxes not only when we make an income, but also when we buy things - corporate taxes, tariffs, fuel taxes, etc. Full understanding this fact leads to understanding that MORE THAN HALF of the money we make goes to the government! Furthermore, understanding how inflation and regulation affects our buying power leads to an understanding that we are only allowed to keep a small fraction of the wealth we create! This isn't just theft, this is slavery!

At the hight of ancient Rome, citizens only had to work 2 days a year to pay their taxes, and I would still call that theft! A voluntary "contract insurance" tax, like Ayn Rand talked about, would be a fair alternative, and would fund all the government that is necessary for a free and prosperous society!

[GunnyFreedom]

Confiscatory Property taxes is one that makes my blood boil. The mindset that any government entity can levy what is essentially 'Rent', to us, to allow us to have controll over what we own is ludicrous. I damn our parents for letting government accumilate this much power.

That's exactly right - property tax has been probably the one major "wanna go freakin insane" issue I have, and have had since I first heard of it. It amounts to paying rent to the gov't for the privilege of using their property. It can only be described as rent - because if you fail to pay, they take their property back.

This is probably my single-most angry issue of everything so far. Maybe even angrier than patriot act and thought crimes bill. I can't tell you how many times I have refused to pay my property tax, stood out on my front porch with a rifle and said "let em come!"

But my family, being afraid for me, would pay the tax that I found so dreadfully evil, if only to forestall a Ruby Ridge on my behalf. I have told them not to pay my way for anything. But I cannot in good conscience pay RENT to the gov't for property I own. I can't pay it because it's wrong, but after so many years now, I know that my family (no matter what I say) will pay it for me, because THEY know if they don't, there will be an ugly clash on primetime news one day when they come to seize my home and land for back property tax.

I cannot overstate how deeply angry this issue makes me. If Thomas Jefferson were here, he'd be advocating armed rebellion over this issue alone. But the sheeple go on paying the gov't rent for the properties they think they own, shrugging on like nothing is wrong. And whenever the concept of property tax comes up in my presence, my eyes glow and I spit. I review in my mind the locations of my rifle and ammo so that I can find them blindfolded, and I think -- yeah, I may die over a stupid principle, but this is one of the most fundamental principles of freedom there is. And people don give a friggin damn!

[RonPaulalways]

"On what principled basis do you declare that all taxation is theft?"

All taxation is the imposition of the will of one group (which in a democracy is the majority) on to the individual without the individual's consent. If 51% of the populations votes for a new tax to fund universal health care, the 49% who did not consent must pay that new tax or face a prison sentence/fine. Taxation is a violent imposition of one party's will onto another.

[FreeTraveler]

On what principled basis do you declare that all taxation is theft?

God ordained taxation to finance the Old Testament theocratic state.

God through the Holy Spirit enforced collectivist resource distribution in the early apostolic church.

And the Constitution authorizes two forms of taxation.

Congressman Ron Paul is against unconstitutional taxation, not all taxation.

On what principled basis do you declare that all taxation is not theft?

Because some dudes wrote a book, or some other dudes wrote a political treatise, neither of which I signed?

Taxation may be biblically justified, or dictated by our Constitution, but neither of those arguments changes the fact that taxation is the forcible taking of the fruit of a person's efforts.

By any form of logic, that still means taxation = theft; justified theft, in your mind, but theft nonetheless. Let's not dress it up with pretty terminology and pretend it's not something that it so obviously is.

[FreeTraveler]

Confiscatory Property taxes is one that makes my blood boil. The mindset that any government entity can levy what is essentially 'Rent', to us, to allow us to have controll over what we own is ludicrous. I damn our parents for letting government accumilate this much power.

There was an article in the paper here over the weekend, where a municipality is setting up a work program so that Seniors who can't pay their property taxes can volunteer for government work assignments to work off their taxes. If that's not absolutely obscene, and a pure case of slavery to the state, I don't know what is!