Rothbard and Menger Trustworthy?
Submitted by Josf on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 00:08My reasoning for starting this topic can be reported by me, and anyone else can do with that information as they please.
Ron Paul will not be leading the fight for Liberty here in this former Republic forever and when another person takes over the collective power of every lover of Liberty every Friend of Liberty, to one degree or another: what will be done with that power then?
Wolves in Sheep's clothing are possible, and this is not NEWS, for anyone who is a Friend of Liberty to warn anyone else, beware of Greeks bearing gifts like Trojan Horses.
If the new leaders of the Liberty Movement can't enumerate specific goals as well as Ron Paul, then which ones are let go?
I know of three vital ones.
1.
End the National Level Enforcement of a Single Legal Money Monopoly Power (Legal Fraud) or otherwise known as End The Fed, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will then allow a new age of Competition in Legal Currencies whereby the force of many people making choices (that nebulous Free Market PROCESS) will result in a steady increase, over time, in the quality of money (POWER) as that cost of that best money goes down (Interest).
2.
End the National Level Enforcement of Direct Taxation (Legal Extortion) upon The People directly or otherwise known as End the IRS, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will return the duty of paying a true Federal government to the elected officials who are hired to run the State governments and then any State can then force the Federal employees in line by either paying for what a State wants the Federal government to do or not paying for what a State wants the Federal government to stop doing - NOW.
3.
End the ordering of our best and brightest on missions that go against The Universal Code of Military Justice, unlawful orders, and instead of ordering our best and brightest to commit crimes against humanity, bring them home, since the two other things on this long laundry list will not be seen as a good thing by all those people who are paid so well to commit legal fraud and legal extortion, legal torture, and legal mass murder, and we sure may need our best and brightest here in the battle against enemies domestic.
Knowing that Ron Paul will someday stop being the best man for the job of defending Liberty, and do so wisely, efficiently, honestly, openly, and in good time, know that his power to do the right thing for everyone else will someday be lesser than today, knowing that, in advance, aught to clue the rest of us in on getting our own acts together concerning the many vital things that must be done sooner, and done before it is too late.
The reason for my question on Karl Menger and Murray Rothbard has to do with those 3 things on that laundry list above, as to who will pick up the sword that stands in between those criminals (made legal) and those targeted victims made victims, and if that sword will be used to stop those crimes or further those crimes (made legal) in progress.
What clues may be known to potential victims in case the newer generations of Friends of Liberty rise in power to a level such as Ron Paul has skyrocketed in only 30 or so years?
If the new leaders speak with forked tongues will the targeted victims hear the contradictions, the duplicity, and thereby understand the hidden agendas in time to pull the plug of support as we provide the means by which we will suffer?
My reasons are mine, and you can certainly offer competitive reasons, for doing whatever you do, but if the negative votes were to speak their mind, would they speak lies, libel, and falsehood as a rule?
- Login to post comments
My point is not counterfeit.
"My point simply is that because Josf thinks some certain tax is voluntary and he/she agrees with the tax doesn't mean someone else agrees with the tax."
Bear, in her not as infinite wisdom as she may prefer in specific cases, appears to have invented a way to get past some unfortunate obstacles not visible to a pair of dummies, or at least one dummy: me.
What is meant by the word mediator?
Josf is a he, I just checked to make sure, and Josf knows at least enough to set goal posts firming in hard ground, going very deep into the ground, and mixing some concrete up, well enough to keep the goal posts from moving, if the idea is to see which ideas are better, and in which ways, than the competition, including my own ideas, which may be much worse yesterday than today, and how would I know, if I didn't set them in concrete, so that they won't move, than the competition can proceed with an understandable outcome, or failing that, the cause of the failure is well marked.
Like leaving a bread trail along the path so as to be able to find my way back home. It didn't work the first time, so should I use bread crumbs to mark the trail the second time, and that involves only me, at my own cost, so what happens if a few people challenge each other with ideas, and none of us set our ideas into any legible form, whereby one minute the meaning is one thing, and the next moment the meaning is the opposite?
Now as to what Josf thinks according to some very extensive publications to that effect, spanning more than 2 decades worth of marking down, in English, what I do think, and being almost perfectly consistent the whole time, with very little variation of any kind, perhaps a roughness at the start, and now almost a razors edge of very straight unwavering solid meaning - without contradiction - there can be, yet, misunderstanding, nicks, gouges, and dullness, to be honed into an even more useful tool.
"My point simply is that because Josf thinks some certain tax is voluntary and he/she agrees with the tax doesn't mean someone else agrees with the tax."
That is not what he thinks, so how can the error be understood, so as not to repeat it?
Is the point such that repeating errors is the goal?
I'd like to read more from someone who is obviously persistent, I'm just not willing to proceed through the mud to get to a supposed goal somewhere off into the darkness.
Joe
Voluntary Taxes
"Voluntary taxation does not exist. If one person protests, the tax is not voluntary."
Then, you can voluntarily not pay the tax, thus making the tax voluntary.
i.e. joining the military is voluntary, you can join or not join.
paying the tax is voluntary, you can pay or not pay.
Another way to say it is the tax is optional. You do not have to participate. I realize this is W A Y outside the realm of thinking.
But as an AnCap, you believe that there should be no taxation, is that correct? Thus government would be unfunded and become non existant, right? But what if your city wanted to build a bridge...you could volunteer to help pay for it. Just as many of us volunteer to contribute to Dr. Paul's campaign. No one makes us, we do it because we want to. If you want a bridge, then you can help pay for it if you want to. If you don't, well that is ok too, but maybe you wont be able to use it, or maybe you will have to pay extra to use it. Just sayin. I don't know how Josf's plan works, that just came off the tip of my fingers.
Just like voting is optional. You can volunteer to go down and vote, your candidate may or may not win or you can just stay home and not vote.
Does that make sense?
Who decides...
which contractors get the construction contracts? Who determines the specifications the bridge must meet - do the voluntary taxpayers have a say? Do the taxpayers get to pick the color the bridge is painted? Will the bridge be painted at all?
Some taxpayer that paid in good faith of getting what they want isn't going to be satisfied with the spending. At that time, during the midst of construction, could taxpayers withdraw their funds voluntarily - thereby creating a heavier financial burden on the other voluntary taxpayers?
Your volunteer tax is sounding less and less voluntary all the time.
To those who may
To those who may want to know,
"Your volunteer tax is sounding less and less voluntary all the time."
Notice, please, the tactic here, and I can wait a few moments to see if you can recognize it too.
.
.
The Man of Straw has been produced. The Man of Straw spoke. And the producer of the Man of Straw tore apart his worthy opponent.
Is the title of this Topic: "Who's better at political games?"
or
"Name that deceitful tactic?"
or
"Straw Men Central?"
If someone cares to speak of legal crime then why not call it what it is, and if someone, anyone, is hiding their crimes behind false words such as taxation, then let them speak for themselves.
Who asked for the Man of Straw?
Can someone raise their hand?
Bear?
Did you ask for a Man of Straw to speak lies and make false claims, or to speak ignorantly, and make ignorant statements, so that a rider on a pale horse can swoop in and tear apart those straws, expose the lies, and render the ignorant even more helpless?
I did no such thing, and if someone has made these claims claimed by the creator of the Man of Straw, then let both people make those claims, the creator, and the Man of Straw.
What does that have to do with this Topic?
Legal Criminals invent, produce, and maintain a fraudulent money, so stop using that money unless you want to victimize weaker people or unless you want to be victimized by stronger people.
A. Pay into it.
B. Don't
That is on-topic.
On topic can also be an effort to invent, produce, and maintain equitable monies (the opposite of a Monopoly fraud money) and in so doing two things may be accomplished:
1.
Less power flows from the victims of that fraud to the criminals who profit at the victims expense with that fraud money.
2.
The former victims may have enough power earned to avoid the IRS criminals.
Looming thereby in view are more Crimes hidden behind more false Men of Straw, claiming that these crimes are taxes, as if by magic a crime is no longer a crime just because someone of some pretentious authority says so, and the gullible are supposed to believe such nonsense, and instead of holding the criminals to account, the victims waste their scarce power on fighting labels and legal fictions and tools and theories and bogey men, and Straw Men.
Hey you?
What?
The Tax did it.
OH MY what can we do?
Kill that tax!
What if these Friends of Liberty prefer something along the lines of a Democratic Federated Republic, complete with Trial by Jury based upon sortition, and as a tax they demand, nicely, from each other to do a minimum amount of work for the greater good.
OH, Joe, you must be Joe King.
I said the minimum, at least.
Heretic!
Burn the bastard!
Cooler heads lad, cooler heads, let the heretic bastard confess!
What is this "minimum" duty of which you speak, this supposed expense for the greater good nonsense - heretic bastard, hold on while I tack this sign on you, hold on there, and answer the question - confess.
Get out of the way I'm going to shut him up, I've got the rope, the fire, and a lot of straw for fuel (arranged much like a scare crow I add)!
No, no, let the lad speak, he will hang himself.
Joe:
Question authority.
No more.
If it must be a minimum, and no more, then at least do that much, for the greater good.
Please.
How is that not useful, to focus that minimum (taxing) effort, for the greater good, as all the individuals volunteering are taxed by that duty, that demand, that dictate, to do at least, at the very least, that much, for the greater good, or suffer the consequences.
Guilty!
He confessed, a sure as the sun will come up, he confessed.
Burn him!
Why so much theater Joe?
It is the minimum I can do, Mr. Authority over the meaning of the word Tax, to question such nonsense.
I know, as a matter of fact, that a criminal dictates the meaning of crime upon his targeted victims and he often uses a false front, a false label, to cover up those crimes, any word will do, you can call in fried chicken, if you please, I'll still question that authority, since by definition it is crime - with or without the false authority covering it up.
As shinny as you may think your badge looks in the mirror, or how neat your clothes may be according to your sycophantic followers, you are naked emperor.
Theft is theft, it is not tax.
Joe
I don't know anything about
I don't know anything about voluntary taxes, governments, or contracts. I don't know much about anything, just that I need to be minding my own business. I had no right to intrude on your conversation with Josf because I really don't know what I am talking about. I just wanted you two to be able to talk because you both like economics. I suppose it is the peacemaker in me, or maybe it was that I was matchmaking instead and should not have sent you two on a blind date. (no romance intended, just using words that make the picture) I've never heard of voluntary taxes before. I am stuck in the involuntary game we are in. Sorry.
No intrusion
And the honeymoon never started.
Bear, if you still can't see, then I see an opportunity to try a different angle of attack on the problem.
The problem can be repeated and then a different angle on the problem can be employed so as to know better as to what can work to avoid the problem.
How does that sound?
If you care to know, if you, at minimum, care to expend some costs on questioning the authority that dictates how crime is tax, or crime is fried chicken, or crime is lawful, or crime is anything but crime, then I am anxious to try another angle of attack on spelling out the problem and then spelling out another angle of attack on that problem.
Deal?
I even have a spell checker to help spell out the problem.
Joe
I think it is a Deal
But what do I need to do?
Know better
I can borrow a method of seeing a possible future and believing that it can be, but not so much a faith in this case, more like a present awareness looking back at a past awareness.
At first all these attacks of very bad information arriving from the darkness can be cause for depression, worry, fear, retreat, disbelief, fondness for ignorance, escape, and a steady acceleration into complete weakness, and then there is a distant light of hope as one piece of the puzzle connects with another piece and a reasonable, actionable, and powerful look at what is true even if the picture seen is the first recognizable snow flake that makes up the tip of the iceberg.
I had this thought today of one of those very large puzzles with thousands of pieces in the puzzle that are all the same color.
All the puzzle pieces are on the table upside down too, so you can't just skip past the ones that are the same color, you have to pick each piece up and turn it over and then work on it; meanwhile the truth prods at your soul relentlessly, and your soul is being stabbed by each very bad image that comes into view as pieces fit together, but I think you have leverage that I don't have, since you can make sense of this stuff from that spiritual angle of view, you can always fall back on that trust, and recuperate when needed, I suppose, but that is just a guess, because I really don't know that trust exactly.
Each step of the way must be done, there is no choice, so my trust may just be experience, and I can't abandon that even if I wanted to, kind of like knowing something and then not being able to return to ignorance, like walking through a one way valve, which is called a check valve in fluid circuits, and it is called a diode in electricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode
That is another advantage I have that you do not have, but your advantages may be uniquely suited to the path you must travel. My experiences may be just so much excess baggage; like more of those puzzle pieces that are of the same color, they are not relative to the picture you are meant to see, or the picture you will see, if there is no "meaning" (something you do not even question).
You already have a very good grasp of the picture and you already know that the picture is an iceberg type of thing with a visible part and a much larger hidden part, so the rest is going to be a lot of work, very slow progress, and occasional moments of incredible, and sudden, epiphany, followed by more drudgery, more attacks from the darkness, attacks that are meant, seriously designed to, willfully crafted to, destroy your soul.
The problem will always exist, as far as I am concerned, perhaps you are more fortunate, or better prepared, or whatever, so to me it is merely a question of using the power available to make more power, as simple as that, and giving up means death, and if I give up, I'm dead, then what happens is a what happens. Now is the power struggle and I'm not giving up.
Each moment in each day is a new puzzle piece, and there is no going backwards, taking apart the puzzle, not willfully, not by choice, the will, the soul, is that part, in my opinion, that works to exist and make existing worth existing.
Imagine, if you can, being the past you and never, ever, turning over another puzzle piece?
Do you really have a choice to go back?
"But what do I need to do?"
Give other people the opportunity to copy your example since many people, not everyone, but many people are looking at making the same mistakes you have made, and that would be a shame.
Joe
Grasshopper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRXvPNRo
I do not understand:
"Give other people the opportunity to copy your example since many people, not everyone, but many people are looking at making the same mistakes you have made, and that would be a shame."
Setting a good example
I don't seek to speak in puzzles, I think I speak in plain English.
Parents need to pass on experience to children and give children the opportunity to avoid the same mistakes made by parents.
Not only that, but I read something that stays with me, and it is written by a guy named Albert J. Nock, and it goes something like this:
Present the world with an improved example.
So the children look up to the parents and they have a job to do, and that is to find the bar set by their parents and exceed that improved example presented to the world as an improved example over their parents.
Does that make better sense?
Joe
I can see, but I cannot hear
"I don't seek to speak in puzzles, I think I speak in plain English."
Yes, but I am a mere grasshopper. I can see, but I cannot hear.
How shall I do this setting of an example? Shall I go raise my children and forget all of this? I still cannot understand English because I cannot hear.
"Give other people the opportunity to copy your example since many people, not everyone, but many people are looking at making the same mistakes you have made, and that would be a shame."
What mistakes are people getting ready to make that I have already made?
Stutter
Post
Joe
Competitive examples
What did you see looking up to your parents?
Does that help, remembering those experiences, to put yourself in your children's shoes?
My Dad went to Korea, joining the Army.
I remember him saying to us boys when we were little:
"Don't join anything."
On his deathbed, figuratively, or perhaps literally, he explained that advice in detail, but I only remember the three words well.
So placing yourself in your shoes, wondering just exactly what your parents left you, and just exactly how well your parents prepared you, and now being parent, you take their shoes, you take parent shoes, and you can imagine being back in your children's shoes.
They can't imagine being in your shoes, that is a bit of a leap.
"How shall I do this setting of an example?"
Word choices confess something?
No mention of quality or cost?
If all you do is set an example, neither better or worse, neither better today than yesterday, or worse today than yesterday, then I think there is a clinical word for that, in context of this thread and this subject.
That is narcissism. There is no such thing as better or worse for anyone other than you, if I understand how narcissism works.
You are not one, unless I've been the biggest dupe for the past few months.
I can't make you read the work done by Eric Fromm or even Robert Lindner, but I can link the sources and some other person on some other path may pick those things up.
http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Human-Destructiveness-Erich-Fr...
http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-rebellion-Robert-Mitchell...
I can condense.
If you were a clinical narcissist your children would be as valuable to you only is the context of how they serve your interests, like a chair, or some inside information on a football game.
Those people (narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths) are the best of the best Friends of Despotism, and they rise to the top of counterfeit government.
We are up against specialists in the field, genetically perfect for the job of being very good at being very evil.
If you are that, then what I have to say won't make any sense, unless you are seeking "talking points" with which to cover up lies with half truths, and you have run out of current material to pick from a hat, cut and paste, to order the minions around, and hand them the script to read, or else, someone else will read the script and be paid handsomely for parroting very destructive lies.
I'm off on a tangent.
Babbling.
What would you want your parent to do if you were your child?
That is not only easy for you to do, it is impossible for you not to do that, so your question is, to me, like you testing me, not you asking me a question.
Did I pass?
Teacher?
"What mistakes are people getting ready to make that I have already made?"
Think of one mistake you have made and then ask yourself if you would have listened had someone clued you in before you took that fatal (figurative) step.
Joe
I have no
idea in the world what you are speaking to me about. I am clueless...so clueless I am laughing to the point of tears. I am sorry. I don't know what you are telling me. And if you are starting to get exasperated at me, please tell me that too.
Could you just give me a simple instruction...i.e. go get me a glass of tea...quit talking to me...raise your children...what am I supposed to do?
"What would you want your parent to do if you were your child?"
I would want my parent to love me and spend time with me.
But I cannot figure out why you are talking to me about this.
Are you telling me I know everything there is for you to tell me and I need to finish putting the puzzle together on my own and concentrate on being a good mother?
Specialists
"Are you telling me I know everything there is for you to tell me and I need to finish putting the puzzle together on my own and concentrate on being a good mother?"
If your parents told you to ignore your kids and find happiness in spending all your power at a job that pays the most money so that some day your children can inherit the largest sum of Federal Reserve Notes that you can possibly save in a bank account, would you do exactly what you were told without diversion of any kind?
We can go over this as many times as needed for you to see the message I am intending to show you, for you to see the picture as I see it, and if the puzzle pieces I keep turning up onto your present work on your puzzle are only showing you the same color, for now, then we can move on, or we can keep turning these pieces that concern this part that looks like open blue sky with no clouds.
If your parents told you to jump off a bridge would you obey that order?
Joe
I wish this were...
"common sense" - as Josf would say.
Shifting goal posts
What is "this"?
I see someone helping criminals cover up their crimes.
As to "common sense" I borrowed from a guy named Tom.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise."
As much as I appreciate that advice I still question the authority in the meaning of those words, since government can, obviously, be voluntary, not evil.
Faced with a number of people wearing red coats, claiming to be enforcing a tax, can inspire people to think that all government is evil, I tend to see past the false labels, and the red colors.
Joe
Does that make sense?
I wish that were common sense.
Did you say that you read Franklin's autobiography?
I may be intruding here, but I feel inspiration to ask if you knew that Franklin wrote a version of The Constitution, and also, there was an effort to be a State called Franklin and then those employees running that State called Franklin tried to join the not-so-perfect Union.
Joe
Not an Intrusion!
I read the autobiography just because I picked it up at a garage sale. I have heard of the state of Franklin, but do not know anything about the things of which you mentioned.
Brave souls
Bear,
Note the negative hit count increase? This OP is at negative 10 now. Could the brave souls be protecting you from falling astray, your poor soul being corrupted by monetary cranks perhaps, or might there be a couple of sacred cows (Menger and Rothbard - apology for greed and managed scarcity) being protected instead?
One brave soul posted a reply, and I have to hand it to those people willing to publish their viewpoints, sticking their necks out, laying it on the line, but seriously, to me it looks more like they put their head in the guillotine while the blade is already falling.
Does that make graphic sense?
Joe
Monetary Cranks
Yes, I see the mark downs. I feel that I am the one that hung you out to dry. I believe I said some words something like if you believe in something why don’t you defend it. Not an exact quote, but I think you probably remember. I feel badly about it, and I am sorry for any discouragement it may have caused.
I am going to tell you, that unless one is very familiar with your whole thread it would be hard to come to the conclusion that you discovered and that I also discovered yesterday.
I had to read your OP, then this comment: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2642253
IMHO that should have all been included in the OP. Even at that I spent a good part of yesterday reading Spooner’s work. And that is only because you redirected me here after reading Mutual Banking. And then you would have to assume I am able to put 2 & 2 together and come up with 4 in order to get to the truth.
Why not just come out and ask the questions?
1) Why does Rothbard Slander Spooner and give quotes from Rothbard & Spooner.
2) Why does Menger see the need for scarcity in order to have wealth?
3) Why do Spooner and Greene advocate plenty?
And then you could give well reasoned answers, and thus educate. Then if people want to mark that down, so be it. But I think people are giving down marks without even fully investigating your offerings. Now I am not defending
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2662512
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2649237
or
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2647793
But the way I am seeing it, these people are all implying the same thing that I am trying ever so carefully and gently to point out. I realize I may be venturing into unwelcome waters. And if so, I will happily retreat. But if the guillotine blade is falling, perhaps we should prop it up and give people a chance to get their head out?
Please accept my humble offering as I do not even know what a monetary crank is.
...
Does it depend upon what is is?
Clues abound when seeking to accurately discriminate between Friends of Liberty and those who resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence so as to pass on costs to their targeted victims.
I would have polished up my last reply on all the work you have done with Spooner, but the forum is behaving oddly and I was unable to continue so you get the version with even more warts that the standard number of warts.
I can work on incorporating your welcome advice in presenting a more open door, something less than a falling guillotine blade or a noose above a trap door.
What is the point?
What are the rules?
Did you start out insulting me?
Would that be a clue?
Did you start out blaming me for your failure to comprehend English?
How did you respond to the falling blade, had your head been separated from your neck, if I can presume such an absurd and abstract illustration?
When you expose my errors do I strike back with insult, lies, misrepresentations, straw-men, hyperbole, and all manner of my supposed advantage purchased at your expense?
Sharpening the capacity to accurately discriminate the difference between Friend of Liberty and moral hazard may be a valuable investment, and I can certainly use the help.
Joe
If the force of law is NOT...
used to impose a tax - as in your scenario - then it is a donation.
Like you said, if I want to help pay for the bridge, I could pitch in. That's not a tax.
From Merriam-Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D
tax - a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
Taxes are not voluntary. No tax.
Uh Oh
Now who told you to go and use the dictionary....laughing and almost crying...inside joke...
Yes, I agree the word tax needs to be changed see last paragraph: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2646822
Shoes on the wrong feet.
I have not picked up the wrong shoe, and in vain have spent too much of my own precious time, cramming the shoe onto my foot, and then hobbling around with very poor fitting shoes.
My point about making sure that the goal posts are not set in mud, or worse, has to do with picking an accurate word where a false word has not worked in the past, when the effort is a mutually understood desire to transfer accurate meaning SO AS TO defend against people who resort to deceit against the innocent, to defend against innocent people who resort to threats of violence against innocent people, and the goal is to combine the power of many Friends of Liberty in the effort to defend against people who resort to very horrible, very terrible, and very destructive violence upon many, and many more, innocent victims.
If it is theft, then why call it anything but theft?
Why use the false currency dictated by the dictators?
Currency is a tool that can be used by people to find mutual agreement, so it is a tool, currency is a tool.
Currency can be picked up by a dictator, and currency can be falsified, it can mean one thing one minute, and then it can mean the opposite thing the next minute, so the problem isn't the tool, if the idea is to get around the problem, since the tool can be used to get around the problem.
Tax defined well can be thus:
A transfer of power from those who produce power to a central location whereby that collected power is then controlled by some method.
The problem I see with someone who is incapable of communicating is such that at some point they will claim that "it depends upon what is is" and I can illustrate this point.
How can many of the victims stop being victims of crime made legal if there is no way in which their power can be transferred into a large enough store of power that will deter criminals who may be targeting one of the victims?
A gun, for example, is a large store of power that would not exist had not a lot of people transferred their individual measures of power into that gun.
Who controls the gun?
If the criminals stole the only gun, and passed a law that says there will be only one gun, without question, then what?
The "let them eat cake" answer, I've heard time and again, might be: I will make my gun, despite the order, and anyone else who may be without a gun can eat cake.
That misses the point.
One person does not have enough power alone to make a gun.
What is wrong with this picture?
Blame it on English?
Blame the tax?
Blame government?
The gun did it?
God did it?
The Devil did it?
The extra large drink did it?
If tax does not work as a word then the idea is to replace the word tax with a less powerful word?
Bear, or anyone, consider two scenarios that I can illustrate and perhaps this will convey accurate meaning concerning the vital need for individuals to agree to transfer power to a central location whereby that power will then be employed in a way that could not have worked without that power collecting in that way, from many, to one collective power, and then that power used up in that one way.
Suppose we two, you and I, get a phone call whereby an innocent child is captured by a very bad person and the innocent child will be tortured and then murdered to death by 12 noon tomorrow.
We only have enough time to get the exact things needed done if there are 3 of us working to arrive at the goal post, to save that child, and we have 2 minutes to convince a third person to join in this example of this defense of Liberty in real time.
I try for one minute, and I take 30 seconds worth of our time to tell you that we should try someone else, and you take the remaining 30 seconds to work on the person I think is not going to see clearly in time.
I wasted a lot of time trying to nail down the meanings of words, so as to get to the point.
Now, please, you can do with my illustration whatever it is you can, or want to do with it, but that is not far off of my situation.
My being.
I cannot ever stop knowing what happened when Waco was live on Reality Television.
Up to that time when that first Episode made it's way onto National Major Media, the first broadcast, the first in the series, up to that day I had been on this path you just got on.
I knew what they were going to do to those people.
I had an M1 Rifle and ammo and I got to the point of calling a phone number to join an armed march on Washington. This is not a fabrication. I am not an agent provocateur. You should be guarded against such things, sure, and there is no way for you to truly know what brought me to call that phone number, desperately wanting to join in on an effective method of dealing with THE TRUTH.
I've had enough of arguments for the sake of argument.
They go nowhere on purpose.
God, or the Devil, or our own stupid incapacity to know better, or a power struggle of all kinds of knowable and unknowable powers brings us to situations whereby we are powerless to do what must be done to save our own souls, and failure is not an option, and being forced into failure will be very bad, and not just very bad for piles of commingled tortured and murdered innocent bodies, but for us too.
So yea, I'm saying "save the children" and to do that we have to tax ourselves, and we have to figure out how to become more powerful than our enemies, so if you don't want to call it a tax, then don't, and if you don't want to call it government don't, but don't just sit there and dictate to me what I think, what I know, what is right, and what is wrong, because we are running out of time.
Joe
Intruder Alert?
"So yea, I'm saying "save the children" and to do that we have to tax ourselves, and we have to figure out how to become more powerful than our enemies, so if you don't want to call it a tax, then don't, and if you don't want to call it government don't, but don't just sit there and dictate to me what I think, what I know, what is right, and what is wrong, because we are running out of time."
Are you directing this statement at me? Perhaps I have intruded? I am sorry, I am not trying to be a dictator. I guess at the most an ambassador or negotiator; and a very poor one at that. Of course it is difficult when one is trying to do represent someone else instead of one's own self.
While I think words are very important, perhaps concepts behind the words are the most important and then we can agreeably decide to agree or disagree upon the actual currency at stake.
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2650266
They are al T words Tax, Theft, Travesty all with negative connotations.
Just sayin.
Odd one out
"Are you directing this statement at me?"
Three is odd.
I employ something I call "If the shoe fits: wear the shoe, and if it does not fit, then you can't wear the shoe."
If a criminal tortures I see evil in someone volunteering to use the word "extraordinary rendition".
If a criminal steals the power of moral law, corrupts it, and then steals the power of money, then I see evil in someone volunteering to use the words "inflation", "quantitative easing", "tax", "spend", "investment", "insurance", or any one of a million possible false words that do not convey accurate meaning concerning the FACT that criminals are in the process of defining exactly what is crime as they continue to do it.
Is that tough to grasp?
English isn't at fault.
Joe
Over and Out 3's a crowd :)
Over and Out
3's a crowd :)
If definitions are so trivial...
what if your husband - in his head with no communication with you - changed the definition of 'prostitute' to mean 'housekeeper'.
One day your husband comes to you and says - "Darling, you sure are working a lot. Without you around the house much anymore, I think it would be wise for me to get a prostitute to stop by a couple of times a week."
When I speak, I speak within the boundaries of the accepted definitions of words. If you wish to redefine words at your own whim, communication with others becomes confusing and unfruitful.
Taxes can never be voluntary with any sizable population.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how or in what instance a tax can be voluntary in any practical scenario.
Redefining tax to mean donation is equivalent to redefining prostitute to mean housekeeper.
It's a Travesty
I happen to like the dictionary. I like boundaries. I am not saying to redefine the word tax. I am saying call the voluntary donation by a correct word, by one that is true by definition: gift, donation, charity; philanthropy; anything but a tax. Now I didn’t look up the word tax like you did, but I should have.
It seems however, if history were told, that some words are stolen and redefined such that the true meaning of the word has been lost into oblivion and the counterfeit definition lives on and we are enslaved by a wrong meaning. You can ask someone else about those words, because I have been using the dictionary since 4th grade.
I happen these days to like to go back to 1828 http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,tax
However, now that I am looking to the authorities how about a current one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_tax Seems there is a theory of “voluntary” tax. You may already know this and perhaps that is why you guys are hammering it out.
I don’t know any of it. All I know is that we have to work til July 15 to pay all of our taxes…which is a travesty. I don’t care what it is called, I am sick and tired of bleeding my power to a prostitute that doesn’t perform its duty responsibly, as far as I can tell, but rather takes more than half of what I have, prints (or should I say counterfeits some more Bernanke bucks) another half and spends into oblivion.
Maybe we should change the word Tax to Travesty, and then we can use the old word Tax however we want to!
Speaking now as someone who may be old enough to be your mamma, why are you hounding everyone about GJ? You will have alot more friends if you can wait a couple of weeks till Tampa is over. These people have spent fortunes in time and money supporting their candidate. Some of them for the last 8 years. Be kind and gentle, my friend.