Will they lock you in a cage and rifle thru yours and your families lives if you use cannabis or like some places if you have "too much" cannabis?
The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution
We need more experimentation.
No income tax. No value-added tax. No excise tax. No estate tax. No poll tax. No property tax.
Most to the land is also free of taxes. Completely.
Microbes. Bugs. Fish & fowl. There is but one animal that concerns himself with taxes... Man. My only critic. Is is a coincidence? I think not.
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
they will still be under the clutches of tyranny.
Property Tax: you will never own your own land. you will always be a slave to US.
And what if this development opens to residential housing? You'd see a massive influx of US expats, not to mention expats from all over the globe.
Were they can stable FREE Humans on display so all the sheeple debt slaves can see how good they realy have it and how terrible those caged free human zones are. Freedom is not having an government apointed governer nor having TEXAS state law where they impose extorted theft called property tax making ownership of land impossible. In fact ownership of land is an illusion for when ever the government extorted theft collector comes and tells you to pay up as much as they want at that time or they will steal you land. A joke until the fiat compounding debt issue money is outlawed.
But that raises a good question as to how that will be handled, also what money system will be used?
Most of the world is free of property tax.
that is it is a world control grid. Perhaps another breakaway civilization. The real question is why should anyone think my property should be handled in any way by anyone but me? When you agree to fund things using theft as your vehicle to gain capital your asking for trouble. Even if you embelish it with a mountian of uphanisms like tax.
Theft is loss of freedom.
What defines whose property is whose property?
For example, in the USA, the vast majority of the land was obtained through the use of force against Native Americans. Is all this property we have theirs then?
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
The property belongs to the extortionist and theives. If you pay rent you dont own the property and if you pay rent its to the owner. So who comes to collect your property tax is the real owner.
Is all this property we have theirs then?
If logic is applied, the answer is yes.
You posed a thoughtful question, though. Dr. NO, who do you think should define property in society?
And, how do you, Dr. NO, define property?
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton
If I own it no one has a claim to it.
What do you mean by own? What is ownership?
If person A sells you the land, and you know that that land was acquired by person A through fraud, do you still have a right to the land?
I think that every society defines property in its own way. Government is often a way that society defines what property is. That's a very 50,000-foot view of it. "It is what it is" way of thinking.
Obviously, there will be individuals in a society who disagree with how that property is defined. In a place like the US, it may be because they don't have enough "votes"; in a place like DPRK, it may be because they don't have the power. But fundamentally, an individual has to live with that. If he wants to change it, he can try and change it...and live with the consequences of that attempt.
But I don't think it is prudent, nor do I think it is meaningful to insist that you have a right to have property be defined a certain way (or that property must objectively be defined in a certain way). Because you may think you have that right...but the question is, how do you get others to believe that you believe? How do you get your views into practice? Like I said, you can try and convince others to see your view and build a society that way; you can hold a gun to everyone's head, you can do whatever.
Solid points, Dr. NO. I agree with you on them.
Interesting that you said "...but the question is, how do you get others to believe what you believe?" That question, I think, sums up government's usefulness, a good usefulness. I believe there's a place for government in the United States, just not today's United States' government.
Thank you for your answer, Dr. NO.
I also think there is a place for government.
Personally, I am a lot more moved by practical, legal, and fiscal arguments than I am by moral arguments when it the role of government. Which is why I like discussions about the constitutionality of things vs. the "morality" of things.
pride and honor. More important than morality. Looks good on paper but you are exactly what the problem is.
Because pride, honor, and morality differ so greatly from person to person.
Practicality will trump morality when trying to coerce others to do something.
Legality is important because I see the law as the "these are the rules you signed up for". It is the most acceptable framework
Given the fact that a US Citizen has to pay taxes to the Federal Gov. no matter where he lives in the world or how he earns the income, this would not be some kind of NO TAX zone for any US Citizen. Furthermore a US Citizen owned company also falls under all kinds of Gov. regulations.
Cool experiment for Citizens of other Countries :D
Here's the best single update from Sept. 6th
Here's the aggregator on all the updates through Sept. 27
Questions like: Who's paying for all this? Still are unanswered (so far)
Lots of background here and is 'developing' as this goes forward.
Doesn't sound very encouraging after reading some of those articles. That country seem far to volatile for this to get off the ground there.
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Give peace a chance?
dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america
But it sounds to me like they are going to rape more natural land to make a buck using freedom as an ad campaign. Anyone have more to add to my thinking? Something here just doesn't "feel" right to me.
it has a rothschild stench to me. illuminati something.
Wait til Alex Jones does some fact finding....like there is some control grid technology they want to beta test there first.
alex jones says the corporations have control of virtually everything and they wouldn't mind if a more libertarian form of government took place in the future
If it is so damn easy to see how great these oasis of freedom work why didn't the Honduras government vote to dissolve itself? Why not make the whole country prosperous instead of just a small company town?
...why didn't the Honduras government vote to dissolve itself?
I was wondering the same thing when I saw this episode on television. I thought, Why not just get out of the people's lives, let them live their lives -- why is the government building a foundation? A foundation is step one in a two step process, step two being the rest of what will be built.
Wouldn't this society, a planned society borne form the Honduras government, merely make numbers out of the individuals living in this area, wherein these people aren't creating for themselves, which is to say working for themselves but that they are filling slots of company X? And to create conditions where the individual has a stake in the company's success and failure, is this conditions creation not indenturing him to that company (for his life), a euphemism for slavery? All the while, outsiders -- people from outside this area, probably not Hondurans even -- produce this life?
I like discussion about reducing a centrality to smallness, but there is a consideration between the right and wrong way to live when a centrality is becoming small or is small: the centrality's role. Does it control or doesn't it control? Is it re-active (good) or pro-active (bad)? Why would it favor, therefore disfavor, one side of life more than the other: economics and personhood.
Strong's discussion is focused on economics with a lock down on the other half of liberty, personhood. To exacerbate the servitude (read: the life of service/slavery) is that this area's currency (probably gold or backed by gold, meaning gold) comes from the outside, and because so it forms a cyclical relationship with what brought it in, the outsiders/business men, and with what they created, their businesses. Having "sound money," that is, "hard currency," can be the lynch pin in applying slavery when its value is connected to what operates outside the people in the area using that currency. But for that pin to be placed requires outsiders whose monetary worth is insurmountable by anyone in the area they are developing. So, a few fundamental questions are: These developers, who are they; how much money and what assets do they own; and, are they connected to people, and if so, to whom?
In the plundering going on worldwide, only one entity -- the one at the top -- has more money than every person worldwide together has. Not only does that entity have more money, the instrument to control, it/he/they must have astronomically more money because he uses the same currencies the people of the world use, currencies that depreciate (because he caused them to depreciate).
How does this relationship of the free city project, an outside-to-inside relationship, do anything other than place tyranny from far away to the locality?
I sense this project is an illusion of freedom, a city of many to come that'll snare the individual into the collective, the collective worldwide. Serfdoms locally worldwide connected to each other. Those serfdoms' bindings: economy (a collective word) transactions. Again.
He did say businessmen are coming into this area: "We expect people from around the world to be interested in opening factories." Factories? Also: "Our goal is to become the most customer friendly government on Earth." Customer friendly. Friendly to the -- customer, the consumer, the person who today consumes X, what he didn't create for himself because he wanted to but did so on someone else's want, and tomorrow will consume Y, what he didn't create for himself because he wanted to but did so on someone else's want. A fleeting life, a consumer's life, a slave's life. And: "What if a government...provided...customer service; [the government] was efficient, effective, transparent. That's a pitch a lot of businesses like." That's a pitch a lot of business men like, not what the natives like, but what the business men like.
Once again government and business together and they're worse than they were any time beforehand: One of those entities is, or both of those entities are, transparent, the mechanism that locks in those businesses in perpetuity. Government in that environment serves business, not any business but, as Strong said, significant business. Not your business that you could create, not yours, you individual.
Also interesting to note in the majority of discussions the word freedom is uttered in is this absence: freedom to create. Often what's said is freedom to choose. Yes, choose, you worker bee, because you will not create for yourself on your want. Forget about freedom and that a consequence of it is self provid(e)-ance, not a job. A job. Job, job, job. Go fill that job, a slot someone created for anyone who today is you, someone who needs it. You are dispensable, worker. Never mind freedom: Never mind doing what you want to provide for yourself.
I must say, it takes an adept mind to dance around freedom, skirting it time after time, this blatant, simple concept and condition inherent in man: that the individual on his want create, provide, for himself.
When will people comprehend the outside-inside relationship enslaves and the inside-outside relationship makes free, is freedom?
Then, when will people stop doing, stop living, the former relationship and do, live, the latter relationship?
It's not a "freedom city", its a Special Economic Zone, a tax-free area to attract commercial investment.