34 votes

Why I can't argue for Limited government.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." — George Washington, allegedly

I believe the root of our problems revolve around force and coercion. The ability for some to coerce others - through the threat of violence - into action that they would not voluntarily take, most people agree, is wrong.

The entire structure of our government is based on the ability to use force. As George Washington (allegedly) points out, it is force. The core of what makes government government is its ability to steal to fund its operations and its ability to initiate force to carry out its agenda. The perceived authority to use force is what makes the organizational structure of government unique.

We teach our kids that theft and coercion is wrong. We don’t accept this behavior from our friends and we condemn it when we see others doing it. We have this reaction because reason, which government is not, tells us it is wrong. Reason tells us that peace won’t come through theft and force. In order to find peace we have to respect others and show tolerance even when we may not agree with their actions.

When the very heart of our system of “order” and “justice”, the system used to “keep the peace”, the system that protects us from unjust force and coercion... when this system is based upon force and coercion, should we expect a successful result? Is this possible, or will it only create more violence?

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

When people argue for “small” or “limited” government it seems that they are trying to solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used to create them. In fact, it is the same kind of thinking that big government proponents use, just to a smaller degree.

In both cases emotions are driving the abandonment of logic. The mistake isn’t in the size or scope of government, the mistake is in acceptance of force and coercion to solve a problem. To accept limited government is to accept some amount of force. The difference between small government proponents and big government proponents is the extent to which they are willing to use theft and force to solve a problem.

The motives are good. The desire to feed the poor, help the elderly, provide for the common defense are all noble. But our emotions let the false promises that theft and coercion give seem necessary. When you are arguing for small or limited government in favor of big government you aren’t condemning this evil, but merely trying to change one’s emotional attachment to a specific issue. You are trying to convince them that certain things are too important to not use force for, but the issues they feel passionate about aren’t important enough. That’s a tough argument to make.

Often times we use the argument of the evils of theft and force on certain issues, but fail to take this principle to its logical conclusion. This slight amount of hypocrisy is confusing and hurts ones credibility. How can something be a principle if it has exceptions?

“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.” – Albert Einstein

It's simple. It's not complex. It's not violent. Theft and coercion are wrong.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Arguing for limited

Arguing for limited government is arguing that a some amount of force an cohercion is needed. Some people will not agree to do things the way you want, so force will be needed.

Why?

You are skipping steps.

Premise: Some people will not agree to do things you want.
Inference: (left blank)
Conclusion: Force will be needed.

Your premise is beyond doubt.

The middle bit you left blank is kind of important though. An example would be: "People always have the moral right to get what they want". Maybe you have a better one.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

People that see big

People that see big government as a problem are concerned that their rights will be trampled upon by the cohersive force that is it's modus operandi, however many of them do not see a problem with a smaller government that has the same method of operating being in existance, and able to use cohersive force on a smaller scale, so long as it's not on them.

I personally think that many that want to scale down government are worried about their own freedoms being trampled, also want a government in line with their own ideologies, while mainting a government with the means to use force against those they are ideologically opposed to. For example, how many tea partiers want limited government, but don't want to stop putting people in cages for putting drugs in their own body? Freedom for me, but not for thee. If you gave up on government all together, it means giving up on a gang of thugs that will impose your ideology on others, and many people's ego's cannot handle that.

bigmikedude's picture

And when you take that force one step further

and lift it to see what promotes its growth, you'll find greed and corruption coiled up beneath it, trying to hide themselves from open view.

Corporate Lobbyists & Lawyers, Special Interest Groups, Campaign Donations, Inside Trading hints, and government Subsidizations with kick-backs.

Yup

And they confuse people into thinking the quest is noble.

I've come to the conclusion that the truth is simple and easy for anyone to understand. But lies on the other hand, in order to make someone believe a lie is truthful, you must confuse the issue enough to hide the contradiction of the basic truths that we all understand.

Escapism

Do not cultivate the vineyard; you'll be bound
Do not cultivate grains, you'll be ground
Pull the camel, herd the sheep
A day will come, you'll be crowned.

-Nomad poem

I highly recommend the book "The Art of not Being Governed" by James C. Scott. Here's more:

In effect the essential thing is to gather into groups this people which is everywhere and nowhere; the essential thing is to make them something we can seize hold of. When we have them in our hands, we will then be able to do many things which are quite impossible for us today and will perhaps allow us to capture their minds after we have captured their bodies.

-French officer, Algeria 1845

I think I'm going to pick

I think I'm going to pick this book up. Thanks!

If you can't argue for limited government, how are you going

to get to your house or leave it.

You must pass through your neighbors property to come and go to yours. If there were no government to force right-of-way laws on us, and all the neighbors surrounding you refused to negotiate contracts with you to allow you to pass through their property, your property would be useless to you because you could not go to it or leave it.

Without government forcing us all to honor a right of way law to pass across others' properties, we would be frozen where we stood.

Do you know of a private, alternative not involving force?

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

For the same reason Walmart doesn't refuse to sell food

Walmart has the food my friend. They could just not sell it. Clearly the answer is socialized grocers, amirite?

Doctors could just refuse to treat people. Clearly the answer is socialized health care, amirite?

You are like the good soviet who grows up with something socialized and can't imagine how you would survive without a government monopoly.

That's all we're talking about. A government socialized monopoly. Under no circumstance is a (real) monopoly better than the free market. Not even for roads.

If the government eminent domains you out of your house, or zones you out of your house, or regulates you out of your house or taxes you out of your house thats all fine.

But someone builds a circular road somewhere, and you build a house in the donut hole, and then you're worried. Answer is you wouldn't build the house in the donut hole.

Yes I could buy up all the farmland and roads in an area, put one grocery store and stop anyone from bringing in food on my roads, so everyone has to buy from my grocery store.

One little problem, no one is going to build a house there.

And how did I get so rich to do all that if I am such an idiot?

You are making the assumption

You are making the assumption that all people would not allow any others to pass on their property, knowing they would probably get the same treatment in return, because... the government isn't telling them they have too.

It's sorta like saying no one would give charity if the government wasn't taking it and redistributing it.

Voluntaryism aka Anarchism

Is the belief that force and coercion should not be used. Stefan Molyneux does a great job outlining how some of this would work practically, and why it is correct morally and ethically. Molyneux also explains the "argument from morality." When slavery was still prevalent, to argue against slavery, you only needed to explain the moral principle for why slavery was wrong. Now that government, aka "the use of force" is prevalent, to argue against "the use of force," you only need to explain the moral principle for why using force is wrong.

To argue for an end of government authority, you don't need to propose it's replacement, only that it is wrong; like slavery was wrong.

If you were forced to live under the mafia, or a cartel, you may not choose to oppose the cartel, which could get you killed or imprisoned. But at least explain to everyone why the mafia is wrong!

Self confessed contradiction?

"To argue for an end of government authority, you don't need to propose it's replacement, only that it is wrong; like slavery was wrong."

In the first place there must be a controversy for there to be an argument. One side is offensive, or antagonistic, and the other side is defensive.

In the second place the "need to propose it's replacement" becomes a need when the aggressor, protagonist, is effectively creating slavery.

If there is no "need to propose it's replacement" there will be enslavement.

In the third place your words confess that there are obvious reasons for the "need to propose it's replacement" as history proves how well crime pays when there is no effective defense against it. Just because the criminals claim to be the defenders does not prove that they are not, in all actual fact, the offending protagonists.

"If you were forced to live under the mafia, or a cartel, you may not choose to oppose the cartel, which could get you killed or imprisoned. But at least explain to everyone why the mafia is wrong!"

According to who?

The willing tax payers?

The willing extortion fee providers?

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"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."

No sooner than the old slave masters were driven out the new slave masters were plotting to take back the power of IMMORAL enslavement of the targeted victims.

http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

What happens when the victims are led to believe that there is no "ned to propose it's replacement"?

No need for this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Beasts?

http://www.patrickhenrycenter.com/Speeches.aspx

"Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it."

Joe

I appreciate the enthusiastic reply

And I appreciate the attention that you gave my comment. This is a conversation that I am very interested in; I study this topic every day.

"If you were forced to live under the mafia, or a cartel, you may not choose to oppose the cartel, which could get you killed or imprisoned. But at least explain to everyone why the mafia is wrong!"

According to who?

The willing tax payers?

The willing extortion fee providers?

I don't quite understand your questions or your reasoning. A mafia uses violence and the threat of violence to get what they want. Do you support that? Do you believe that is an ethically correct way to achieve things? If an entire town lived in fear of mafia violence, would that be wrong in your opinion? Or is it not important?

I don't understand.

The willing tax payers?

The willing extortion fee providers?

And during slavery you probably would have called them "the willing slaves?'

The reason we call them TAXES and not CHARITY or DONATION is because we HAVE TO FORCE people to pay them under threat of violence or imprisonment in a rape cage. And the reason we call it "extortion fee" instead of DONATION, is because they had to threaten violence or destruction to get you to pay.

Taxation is theft. Government is the vail that hides the word theft. Government is the vail that hides the gun that is pointed at you.

My common problem.

I fail to communicate often.

"I don't quite understand your questions or your reasoning. A mafia uses violence and the threat of violence to get what they want. Do you support that?"

The IRS is exactly the same thing as any other mafia with one possible exception: some of the victims are led to believe that the IRS is not a mafia.

Your words, to me, miss the point.

Your words:

"A mafia uses violence and the threat of violence to get what they want."

A mafia uses lies more effectively than threats or violence. A lie is less costly, less bloody, fewer skinned knuckles, and if the lie is very effective then the victims will be working harder and harder for the perceived benefits of paying the extortion fee at ever higher rates of payments flowing from the earner to the extortionists.

"Do you believe that is an ethically correct way to achieve things?"

What I wrote was this:

"No sooner than the old slave masters were driven out the new slave masters were plotting to take back the power of IMMORAL enslavement of the targeted victims."

I picked the word IMMORAL and I capitalized the entire word for effect, if you do not understand what I mean, then I can explain in greater detail.

No sooner than the IMMORAL and UNETHICAL British criminals were driven out of the voluntarily united constitutionally limited sovereign states of the former colonies, then, no sooner than the criminals were driven off, the next wave of criminals began to plot and make real a new INVOLUNTARY IMMORAL UNETHICAL association; which became real when those former sovereign states "ratified" The Constitution.

RATification of The Constitution was a return to Involuntary Association or Slavery made Legal.

No I do not support slavery made legal willingly, it is wrong, it is self-destructive.

"If an entire town lived in fear of mafia violence, would that be wrong in your opinion? Or is it not important?"

An example?

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/bsbhm2.html

It is important for all human beings to defend Liberty, failure is a slow miserable death.

"And during slavery you probably would have called them "the willing slaves?'"

And during a discussion those volunteering to discuss a topic can defend themselves against unwelcome inferences of some nebulous wrongdoing. There is a well enough understood phenomenon that has an accurate label in English to be used when making references to the phenomenon.

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Econom...

Manufactures Consent

or

Brain Washing

or

Behavioral Modification

or

Response Conditioning

Do you understand how the phenomenon works?

How about the term Stockholm Syndrome, do you know what it is, how it works, and the utility of it for those who seek to enslave their targeted victims?

"The reason we call them TAXES and not CHARITY or DONATION is because we HAVE TO FORCE people to pay them under threat of violence or imprisonment in a rape cage."

I do no such thing.

You can, please, remove me from YOUR list that you call "we."

During my run for congress I offered the voters a choice, openly, honestly, that taxes do not have to be involuntary.

Who listened?

"And the reason we call it "extortion fee" instead of DONATION, is because they had to threaten violence or destruction to get you to pay."

Now lies are told, manufacturing consent.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo.

"Taxation is theft."

Theft if theft, why use two words? Are you working a well worn deception yourself: dividing so as to conquer?

"Government is the vail that hides the word theft."

Again, why confuse terms? If there is a veil, then the word for it is "veil," so why switch out the word "veil" and put in place the word government?

Who benefits from your bait and switch routine?

"Government is the vail that hides the gun that is pointed at you."

Government is strictly voluntary, or it is crime hiding behind the thin veil (lie) of a false government front.

You may need to do some more research before jerking your knee my way, please.

Joe

I am enjoying speaking with you

But you are wrong on some pretty basic and fundamental points. I will discuss these specifically using quotes from your reply. But these concepts are so basic and well known... that I am surprised that you argue against them.

Your words, to me, miss the point.

If you could state your point SUCCINCTLY, I would be happy to agree or disagree with it.

How about the term Stockholm Syndrome, do you know what it is, how it works, and the utility of it for those who seek to enslave their targeted victims?

Yes, I believe I understand it. I think that most Americans experience Stockholm syndrome; in relationship to their government, "rulers," and parents.

"The reason we call them TAXES and not CHARITY or DONATION is because we HAVE TO FORCE people to pay them..."

I do no such thing.

This is one point that I cannot believe you even try to argue. Do you really think THAT TAXES ARE VOLUNTARY? THAT TAXES ARE OPTIONAL? That is so laughable. I think even grade schoolers understand that you would be fined, detained, and then imprisoned if you CHOSE NOT to pay your taxes. If I am mistaken, and you don't think this, then correct me. But if you think paying taxes is something we HAVE A CHOICE on, you have to outline this; because I think that IT IS CLEARLY not true!

"Taxation is theft."

Do you disagree with this?
I believe most people on this board agree that taxation is theft.

"Government is the veil that hides the word theft."

Yes, it seems quite simple. If your neighbor said "hey I insist you give me 30% of your earnings." You would obviously say "you have no right to my earnings." But if an IRS agent says "hey I insist you give me 30% of your earnings," you should respond differently? Do IRS agents have "magical rights" that common people don't have?

And this seems so basic, I am surprised you argue against it.

Kidnapping is wrong, unless a man in a blue costume does it.
Killing is wrong, unless a man in a camouflage costume does it.
Stealing is wrong, unless a man with an IRS jacket does it.

You see, being a "government employee," allows the violation of basic rights.

Government is strictly voluntary...

Really?
If you don't "volunteer" to send your kids to public school, what do you think will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to pay property taxes, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to obey traffic postings, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to show up for a court date, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to pay for the military budget, what will happen?

I am not sure we are using the same definition for "voluntary."

And I cannot believe you are sincere with your message that "taxes and government are voluntary." You consider yourself qualified to serve in congress? And you can honestly say that "taxes are voluntary?"

Wow.

Unfulfilled promises are the routine?

Where is the exception?

"But you are wrong on some pretty basic and fundamental points."

That looks like a promise by you to show me (the simpleton in your eyes) where I am being proven wrong. The problem with that promise (if it is one) is such that your claim is that you know what I think, based upon what I write, and the routine for me is that no such claim is even close to being valid. Then the routine goes on with error upon error based upon the original false claim whereby the person making the false claim has claimed to know what I think.

"... I am surprised that you argue against them."

I don't argue. My useful definition of an argument is a meeting of an aggressor who targets someone for some reason and what happens is an attempt by the aggressor to win some nebulous contest.

It takes two to tango. I don't.

"If you could state your point SUCCINCTLY, I would be happy to agree or disagree with it."

My point had to do with your claim concerning what you call "government" whereby people utilize threats and violence to get what they want from the people they target. The point that you miss, in my view, is the use of falsehood added to the use of threats and violence.

Your words:

"A mafia uses violence and the threat of violence to get what they want. Do you support that?"

So the answer to your latest question is: The point you missed was the point at which the people who perpetrate crime (with or without a badge) utilize falsehood, so that is the point that you miss, in my view, based upon what you wrote in quotes above.

Next is this:

"This is one point that I cannot believe you even try to argue."

I don't argue. What would be the point? You can always win, in your mind. I have no desire, whatsoever, to be used by you in such a manner.

"Do you really think THAT TAXES ARE VOLUNTARY? THAT TAXES ARE OPTIONAL?"

Why do you personalize something that can be proven one way or the other way? Why do you decide to make a claim that I am in some way wrong? Either taxes are voluntary or taxes are not voluntary. I see no point in arguing, so what is your point in attempting to turn a discussion into an argument?

In every single case where someone voluntarily pays a tax, in each case, that proves the point that taxes are voluntary.

If you want to call a tax an involuntary payment, then you can do so, and who is to argue with your use of words?

Not me.

If any transfer of power is the result of a criminal using falsehood, threat, or violence upon an innocent targeted victim, or victims, then said transaction is a crime, not a tax, unless the "tax payer" wants to call it a tax, and unless the criminal wants to call it a tax, and then YOUR argument is YOURS not mine. I know what a crime is and I have no cause to call a crime anything other than a crime.

You and a whole army of fellows in agreement can call a crime anything you want, you all can call it a tax payment, if that floats your boat, but it has nothing to do with me, as I prefer to call a crime a crime, since a crime is a crime, defined by criminals as they define the meaning of crime, even if they call their crimes Fried Chicken, or tax payments, it remains to be crime, despite the false terminology.

"That is so laughable."

Ha ha, at my expense?

Is that the point of YOUR argument?

You have me in your sights, and you are making me pay your tax now?

"I think even grade schoolers understand that you would be fined, detained, and then imprisoned if you CHOSE NOT to pay your taxes."

I was a third grader once, and I have raised two of my own children, who went through third grade, and we three know what criminals are, even when they say they are demanding taxes, we know how that works, they have trouble getting their victims to pay when they are honestly claiming to be collecting their extortion payments.

Laugh all you want, at my expense, ha, ha, ha, isn't it so (expletive) funny?

I'm not laughing.

"If I am mistaken, and you don't think this, then correct me."

Arguments involve the person targeting me for their version of a "tax payment" (they get to laugh at my expense) so they, in this case you, tell me what I think. What happened this time? An exception to the rule? You ask what I think?

I think criminals perpetrate crimes, and one obvious version of crime is to call their crimes by other names. When the victims start using the other names too, then that is part of the conditioning, proof positive to me. What you think is your business, not mine.

What you write, on the other hand, is interesting enough for me to comment upon it, despite the obvious, measurable, costs to me personally, as you laugh at my expense, for example.

"But if you think paying taxes is something we HAVE A CHOICE on, you have to outline this; because I think that IT IS CLEARLY not true!"

In these so called arguments there is no demand for my outlines, as the person demanding the taxes (you in this case) find ways to make me look stupid, and then the tax collector (in this case you) get to laugh at the work done to me. How fun can it get?

Ha, ha, ha, isn't it so (expletive) funny?

________________________________
"Taxation is theft." Do you disagree with this?
________________________________

Case in point. I already outlined my viewpoint well enough. I can repeat, but for what reason, so you can laugh at me more?

Theft is theft. Falsehood is falsehood. Lies are lies. When the criminals steal they often call their actions names that make their actions less obvious. When the victims start using the false words, that measures something worth knowing, in my opinion.

"I believe most people on this board agree that taxation is theft."

Next you are going to inform me of what is, or is not, democracy according to you and your well conditioned mob?

'You would obviously say "you have no right to my earnings."'

You don't know me. I would ask if there was a good reason for me to transfer that economic power to my neighbor. I like my neighbors, they are good people.

"But if an IRS agent says..."

I think you mean the criminals, at least you are using symbols that accurately identify criminals, so I can respond to any criminal demand in the same way. If I can find a way to avoid paying an extortion payment to a criminal then I answer that demand in that way. I don't need to announce to you, or the fellow criminals, how I manage to avoid paying the extortion fee.

"Do IRS agents have "magical rights" that common people don't have?"

Criminals who know better know how to convince their victims that their victims have no choice, and the really good criminals convince their victims that the extortion payments are taxes, and in that way the victims no longer understand how defensive voluntary government works. Cases in point are abundant, even ubiquitous.

"And this seems so basic, I am surprised you argue against it."

Now that you have constructed someone arguing with you (not me by the way) you can laugh at how stupid your construction of your arguing partner is to you?

"Kidnapping is wrong, unless a man in a blue costume does it."

So far the promise of someone proving to me how wrong I am is non-existent.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you don't "volunteer" to send your kids to public school, what do you think will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to pay property taxes, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to obey traffic postings, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to show up for a court date, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to pay for the military budget, what will happen?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You don't know me, yet you think you do, and you are the one laughing?

'I am not sure we are using the same definition for "voluntary."'

If I am a part of "we," then you can know, for sure, that we have not established the meaning of any words in any way whereby I agree, voluntarily, with the word in question.

If we can't agree on the word government, or tax, then I have no confidence at all in agreeing with the meaning of any words you may have to offer to me, voluntarily. When you claim to know the meaning of the words government and tax, despite my objections, that tells me that our discussion is not one, instead our discussion is you dictating to me the meaning of words. That may work for your entertainment at my expense, but for my part, this is no longer a voluntary association. This has become a defense on my part, as you resort to distortions of facts in the effort to gain at my expense.

Criminals are what criminals do.

____________________________________________________
And I cannot believe you are sincere with your message that "taxes and government are voluntary." You consider yourself qualified to serve in congress? And you can honestly say that "taxes are voluntary?"

Wow.
______________________________________________________

Here is the place I am familiar with, having actually participated in so called debates where candidates, including me, spoke with potential "tax payers" and the level of ignorance was palpable.

Fewer "tax payers" actually "vote" as the lies unravel, those who still do are learning the hard way.

Perhaps you will too.

Joe

I am not sure what your point is now

We have done a lot of typing here! And I am totally unclear on what you would like to make. I cannot clearly summarize any position you have taken. If you could make a point, IN ONE SENTENCE, that would be succinct and clear. I still welcome you to present your views, positions, beliefs, or opinions; whatever you prefer to call them.

I think I have presented my positions clearly:

1. Taxation is theft.
2. Government IS the "use of force."
3. Government is not voluntary, it is forced
4. Taxation is not voluntary, it is forced.
5. "Government Authority" is used to perform immoral acts, such as imprisonment, kidnapping, theft, or violence.
6. The reason that we HAVE THESE WORDS: "Tax" and "Government", IS TO HIDE the immoral acts that they perform, and dress them up as something "good," "virtuous," or "for the public good."

I don't know how much more succinct I can be. If you disagree with one of these, I would love to hear you succinctly present your reason for disagreement; and perhaps provide me with some good reason to agree with you, perhaps some obvious example or evidence that we all "volunteer to pay taxes." But these are my views, and I can easily defend them. I can see what happens to people that don't pay their taxes, or don't obey government edicts.

No thanks

"I would love to hear you..."

Based upon current experience I trust that your words are empty.

Joe

Based upon your rhetoric...

Based upon what you have written, you apparently don't have a single point to make.

In defense

The point made was simple.

Tax can be voluntary, if tax = theft, then there is no need to hide the fact that a theft is in progress by calling the theft in progress anything other than a theft in progress.

The criminals obviously benefit by having their crimes covered up by those who help the criminals hide the fact that a crime is in progress.

Aiding and abetting criminals is a crime in progress.

Having someone attack me with falsehoods for doing the opposite of aiding and abetting the criminals is a routine occurrence.

"you don't have a single point to make"

Falsehoods are obvious, as to the intent or willful distortion of the facts, a confession is not asked for or needed.

Theft is theft. Liars are liars.

Joe

Tax can be voluntary, if tax

Tax can be voluntary, if tax = theft, then there is no need to hide the fact that a theft is in progress by calling the theft in progress anything other than a theft in progress.

You really can't think of any reason someone might want to trick another into thinking theft isn't theft? like maybe so they could more easily thieve from them?

Non-criminals?

I don't know why this question is addressing me, if that is the intent here.

Anyone can easily understand why criminals resort to the use of False Fronts.

The point I tried to make has to do with how current victims work to become former victims.

I don't call crimes by any other names, because I have no reason to hide the criminals behind false names.

Is that clear, or not clear, or slightly not clear?

If it is not clear, then what might be preventing it from being clear?

Joe

Not clear how taxation can be

Not clear how taxation can be voluntary...

A question and answer?

Take anyone, anywhere, and ask if taxes are voluntary.

Are the answers honest?

Are the answers accurate?

Are the answers always the same answer either yes or no?

If the answer is no, then the obvious follow up answer is why pay them if they are not voluntary?

Assuming that the question is answered honestly and accurately, are there any possible ways to move from the direction of involuntary taxes to voluntary taxes, if that is what is happening one step at a time, and if it can be understood that there is no Zero Sum Game, that the concept of taxation is not All or Nothing as if someone, somewhere has switched a switch and no one no where is able to turn that switch off?

Two offers as an answer to your response (question?) are methods by which the concept of voluntary investments in mutual defense have worked to keep such agreements voluntary and have defended against having such agreements twisted into being involuntary agreements:

1.
Trial by Jury worked as it was originally designed to work as a means of volunteering to stop paying Involuntary taxes. It still works today in cases that are obviously too few in number.

2.
Voluntary arrangements among cooperative AND competitive governments offered tax payers the choice to volunteer to pay taxes in government A or government B and thereby lead by voluntary example.

I can offer links for 1 and 2 if there is a voluntary demand for such information.

Joe

Self spoken contradiction?

If the word Government is spoken in such a way as to intend to convey an INVOLUNTARY association then why use the word Government?

There is no limit on INVOLUNTARY association, in the sense that THE limit has already been exceeded, the POWER to create and maintain the INVOLUNTARY association has already been established, and therefore there exists, past that LIMIT, an INVOLUNTARY association.

When the Masters (Criminals) and the Slaves (Victims) are working each day to maintain the INVOLUNTARY association, there is a point crossed, another LIMIT passed, whereby no other possible association is within the reach of their very LIMITED minds.

If, on the other hand, those same Masters and Slaves were to harken back to, or currently entertain, or imagine a future existence in, VOLUNTARY association, and realize that Government has been, is, and can continue to be, strictly based upon The Consent of the Governed, as in the meaning of the words VOLUNTARY Association conveys, then there is in that way, a measurable return back across the line whereby the LIMIT on Government is no longer exceeding the LIMIT on Government.

This is easily understood with simple tests that can help each individual person test themselves in the effort to know the difference between a free mind and a mind that is caught within the Master/Slave Falsehood.

Is it necessary to enforce involuntary taxes?

1.
Yes, I have exceeded the LIMIT of LIMITED Government, I am one of the criminals, and therefore the answer is yes, We The Criminals must rob our victims or our victims will choose not to be our victims.

2.
Yes, I have exceeded the LIMIT of LIMITED Government, I am one of the slaves, and therefore the answer is Yes, We The Slaves must turn things around so that We, not They, must rob our victims or our Masters will continue to be our Masters, instead of us being the Masters over our Slaves.

3.
No, history, current reality, and future possibilities, confirm that the accurate answer is that Crime does not have to be made Legal, since Free Market Government works very well for the purpose it is intended, which is to Defend Liberty.

Joe

???

when has any government been based on the consent of the governed?

Every case

In every case where there is consent of the governed there has been, is, and will be cases where there has been, is, and will be any government based upon the consent of the governed.

Obviously, based upon the triple question marks, the person asking the question harbors a belief that the word "government" is a synonym for involuntary association, and therefore, logically, reasonably, the person publishing the three question marks also considers the word government to be a synonym for slavery.

Here are a few words to the wise:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If by "government" the person using the word means "slavery," then people will be divided into 2 classes of people as such:

1.
Masters
Those who work to maintain said "government"

2.
Slaves
Those subjected to said "government" despite the obvious need to run away from it.

Joe

???????????????????

When has any government been based on the consent of the governed?

Some examples include

1.
Athens Greece

2.
Icelandic Commonwealth

3.
England at the time of Magna Carte with Trial by Jury based upon sortition

4.
Holland at the time of the American Revolution

5.
The Confederation of Sovereign Republics under The Articles of Confederation (based upon The Declaration of Independence)

6.
Switzerland

7.
Many individual people who govern themselves well enough to avoid resort to crime.

8.
Many cooperative, voluntary, associations of numbers of individuals who manage to govern themselves without resort to crime.

9.
True religion

10.
The so called Internet

What does a runaway from religious and economic oppression from England have in common with a runaway slave from the south?

No more connection to their former masters.

When government is based upon consent there are no masters or slaves, and that was the message offered in The Declaration of Independence for those who may not understand such concepts.

Joe

none of which had unanimous consent....

so some people were still FORCED to participate in things which they did not agree or believe in. That is a clear violation of the non-aggression principal. which = fail and another circular argument.