Did you know that the same army, which is paid in part from your wages, could in fact be given orders to imprison you as an enemy of the state because of your ideology?
Would you therefore consent to taxation for the purpose of depriving you of your ideal? I do not think so! Unless of course you desire to pay the cost for unjustly imprisoning you.
Does this make sense?
Every single dollar in existence has entered commerce as a debt. There are no dollars in the economy which do not represent a principal debt. Thusly, if the economy does not have enough money for the service of its debts then the current crisis is a debt crisis and not a credit crisis.
Albeit, I do agree that the Federal Reserve has laid the foundation for the U.S. economy to perpetually suck off its credit tit.
“End the Fed!”
(Did you know that the economy is debt-based and not credit-based?)
Firstly isn't your argument the improper use of taxes rather than tax itself?
I was following along with your post. Consider it an application of how tax revenues can and do benefit both the poor and wealthy. But, truthfully, I am not intending to dispute proper or improper allocation of tax revenue.
I'm guessing you're not against welfare or helping the poor pay for their meals - but would prefer it if the money didn't go into the hands of private companies?
If I consent to be taxed for that purpose, then the answer is no. And consequently I must disregard who is the final beneficiary.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
I think it'd be better if you argued this one though because I don't really know how to poke at this subject.
I was not thinking ‘private’ standing Armies, rather public.
Would you like to have the first stab at this one? Originally, I did not clarify either a public or private Army.
I completely agree. And I also simultaneously know that Israel has already finalized its plan to strike Iran with nuclear tipped missiles. What I don’t know, however, is what will trigger the execution of that plan.
Obviously we are not, as a country, troubled by Israel’s plan to bomb Iran, with nuclear weapons, but we certainly are troubled by Iran’s intention to finalize the necessary parts for a plan to bomb Israel.
Did I ever mention that I am impervious to fear and war-mongering?
Also, did you know that there is a population of about 25,000 Jews in Iran who are quite comfortable living in Iran? It’s as though 25,000 Jews are telling the world that they feel safe and sound in their home, Iran, despite what the world press and media fills the air-waves with. Hell, the damned constitution of Iran protects, specifically, Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Note: Without taking the time to cite the source, I do know that Israel will pay Jews to move to the mother-land. Yet, there are very few takers. Take that for what it is worth.
I have the ability to produce more than I can use. The surplus can either be used to pay private companies to help themselves and me... or the government to help everybody. That's tax in this day and age (to me anyway) hiring a public (not a private) company.
Do you disagree?
Interesting perspective you have there.
And yes, categorically, I disagree.
Let’s consider exhibit 99: Food stamps
In the U.S., a portion of the taxes collected from private citizens are allocated for food benefits. The recipients of these benefits can then buy food from their local China-mart or Mexi-mart. The businesses which accept these benefits as payment for food are monetarily reimbursed by Morgan Stanley, which handles the clearing house for these transactions; well, 80% of them anyway. Shall I also add that Morgan Stanley generates a profit thereby? What about the farms that receive monetary payment from China-Mart or Mexi-Mart in exchange for their food.
See, in the example of the food stamps, the government is transferring your surplus wealth from your hands to the hands of other private entities, through the hands of the impoverished citizens of your society.
Therefore, in the example of food stamps, you are benefitting private corporations despite your effort to benefit a public company by paying taxes.
(For the record though, I do believe, and I mean “believe”, all human beings have a responsibility to not over-look the needs of the poor. Why? In one simple term: reasonable and unadulterated COMPASSION!) But, I will add the qualification: each according to his ability and abundance in accord with his choice. After all, no man will rationally choose to give one cent each to 1000 paupers when ten bucks given to one pauper will..., and the right to choose which pauper shall be...)
But let’s assume that no man dissents to taxation for the sake of paupers, despite the lucrative profits such taxation provides for private corporations, and consider another subject: a standing army.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
Legally living in a country means willingness (or atleast pretence) to abide by the rules, and so by owning property within a nations border you have given consent to the laws set by the nation. By living (legally) in a country I have consented to paying tax.
Bullshit! And you know it! (I am being friendly and not antagonistic. Just ask my friends and family.)
Sorry, there is no argument which will persuade me that my dissent is illegal. Especially when I am told that my consent is legally assumed by other persons. However, the fact remains that I have not formally consented to anything. There is no contract in existence which allows another man to evidence I have formally consented, by writing, to be taxed without my consent. (Prove to me that paying taxes universally negates coercion. After all, I would rather consent to the demands of a thief/thieves than suffer both the loss of my property and imprisonment.)
And until some man or group of men can produce a document in which I have voluntarily, and contractually, bound myself to taxation, all efforts to extort my wages are criminal.
Ultimately, your rebuttal, as well as nearly all others of the same position, is criminalizing dissent.
(I would have thought that most people understand that one man’s liberty is not legally negated by other men’s tyranny.)
Let me now focus my argument toward you and those of your view.
Currently, your camp believes it derives a greater benefit from taxation than the benefit of self-reliance. Your camp, which I will now refer to as the “Cabal”, thusly relies upon the labors of others in order to support its standard of existence.
(I’ll stop for moment for the sake of avoiding my re-visitation of the degenerate intellect of serfs and proletariats. And no, I am not intending to insult you. But you may very well be my punching bag, temporarily. Sorry! )
Sorry, my computer cannot reliably download the simplest of videos.
But I did notice in the description of the video an identical comment to my assertion:
The Great Sperm Race tells the story of human conception as it's never been told before. With 250 million competitors, it is the most extreme race on earth and there can only be one winner.
…”and there can only be one winner”.
The following sources support a consideration for the inference of order. Please read the complete articles.
Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at Sheffield University, told BBC News Online: "This study is potentially very exciting as scientists have been searching to demonstrate whether or not sperm really are attracted to the egg in mammals.
"What it illustrates is that the process of sperm transport to the egg is not just about sperm swimming around until they find an egg.
"It is likely to be highly coordinated and involving a number of different mechanisms of which odorant receptors may play an important role. --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/
Sperm do not swim randomly; they use various clues and factors to help reach the egg.
In humans, apparently, the female reproductive tract becomes warmer as the Fallopian tubes are neared. Current research at Harvard University has shown that sperm swim from colder to warmer regions (Flam 2006). Also, research has indicated that sperm swim towards increasing concentration gradients of a synthetic compound called bourgeonal (Flam 2006). Whether the egg or female body releases the chemoattractant is unclear as of now. But studies have been convincing to show that sperm can smell. Essentially, sperm smell their way from the vagina to the to the location of the egg in the distal parts of the female's Fallopian tubes (Flam 2006). Once the sperm meets the egg, fertilization can occur.--
Do you know why the Mexican president, California, and Washington DC. oppose Arizona’s immigration law?
All of them are fearful of a half-million Dora Explorers, which now reside in Arizona, migrating to their lands.
(Have you heard any of them inviting Arizona’s illegal population? Personally, I would have thought the president of Mexico would have wanted his citizens back in his country to do the same wonderful job they are doing in Arizona. But I guess he too realizes his country is better off without them.)
Here is the initial phase of an argument affirming that Taxation is legalized theft.
Let’s digress for a moment. Capital punishment is legalized killing.
Let’s now consider both propositions.
1) Both taxation and capital punishment are legal. This is axiomatic.
2) Capital punishment is killing. This is axiomatic.
3) Taxation is theft. This is also axiomatic.
How? Simple, the government of the United States enforces both taxation and Capital punishment by obvious, open coercion-- which is legal. I’ll now focus upon the principles of taxation as they relate to men taxing other men. (Only men collect taxes from men. Let’s forget the notion that a government exists apart from men.)
Men bind themselves to one another through contracts. All parties who are signatories of a contract are consenting to the terms of that contract. If a person does not sign a contract, the same has then not bound itself thereby, to other men, according to its terms. Either way, no person can be (justly) punished for refusing to contract with other men.
Notwithstanding, no man can justly assume the consent of another man. Two men can’t assume the consent of a third person. Two-hundred men can’t assume the consent of another person. Five-hundred politicians, calling themselves the ‘government’, can’t assume the consent of another person. Yet, if a people decide that they can assume the consent of another person, the same are enemies, criminals and tyrants to the person who no longer has a choice to determine with whom it shall not covenant.
Are we in agreement thus far before I continue this argument?
