35 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.




Comment viewing options

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

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

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.

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.

Jerk in your own circle

I'll have none of it.

The design of a Free Market Government is understandable in actual actions done by actual people.

Words can convey information as to what actually happens in a Free Market Government design.

Example:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

_______________________________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
_________________________________________________

Jerk away, if that is your choice.

Joe

seems like a stretch. I was

seems like a stretch. I was thinking that consent of the governed would be the governing body actually asking and receiving consent from the prospective citizens..

What would happen to a citizen of Switzerland if they decided they no longer gave their consent to be governed?

Why not look at home instead?

The legal precedent occurring between 1776 and 1788 when these united states (states united voluntarily) worked as a Free Market Government Design, there was a lack of consent in Massachusetts that became known as Shays's Rebellion.

What happened in that case?

If you care to know, I can offer my end in a discussion, and a few sources of information.

http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-...

When the criminals take over the government, and therefore consent is no longer working, the victims of the criminal government become slaves to those criminals who took over that government. What do the slaves do when they do not consent to being slaves?

Joe

states uniting voluntarily

states uniting voluntarily isn't the same as individuals uniting voluntarily. Does the united nations have the consent of the governed because all nations voluntarily joined? The governed are always the ppl and creating a mythical entity above the individual that speaks for the individual without the individuals consent doesn't make it consensual.

I would like to hear your take on shay's rebellion.

Offense or Defense

The words you speak, in my view, miss the point.

The necessity of government is forced upon defenders by offenders, or in other words the potential victims of criminals are forced into expending their precious resources cooperatively toward defense against inevitable victimization at the hands of criminals.

The necessity of figuring out how to voluntarily combine forces of individual defenders in such a way as to make crime less affordable for criminals compared to other (voluntary) pursuits that criminals would pursue when faced with effective defense is demanded upon the potential victims by the criminals.

The criminals have figured out how to voluntarily cooperate among themselves, and the criminals have figured out how to convince the targeted victims that the criminals are their protectors.

A protection racket, in other words, is a method by which the criminals convince the victims that they have no other choice other than to pay the criminals for protection against the criminals.

When such a lie takes hold, the victims are then steadily growing weaker while the criminals are steadily growing stronger.

The final nail in the coffin occurs when the victims no longer conceive of voluntary government, and therefore each individual victim is completely left to their own individual defensive power.

Shays's Rebellion (false terminology) was the last battle of the Revolutionary War as actions of victims of a criminal Massachusetts "government" were voluntary associations in defense of those criminals who took over that State government within that Voluntary Union of Constitutionally Limited Nation States or Republics.

According to known common law (another falsified term to be wary of) and according to the principles reported in The Declaration of Independence, the Slaves who were being made into Slaves by the criminal Government in Massachusetts, banded together to regain control of the Massachusetts Armory, however the Revolutionary War Soldiers were "put down" and the survivors of the criminal actions of the "Governors" of Massachusetts fled like runaway slaves into Vermont.

So that set-up the legal precedent which proved the validity of the Free Market design of a Confederation of Constitutionally Limited Nation States or Republics, because there was no Central Monopoly Involuntary Slave Master Cabal (Dictatorship) having Authority to demand that Vermont return the runaway slaves who ran away from Massachusetts.

Vermont was asked to return the fugitives (Revolutionary War veterans who were following the principle declared in The Declaration of Independence = consent of the governed) slaves but Vermont did not "officially" reply or some such refusal.

It was obvious, then, to the Central Bankers Cabal, including both Hamilton and Washington, that the Voluntary nature of the association had to go, so the so called Federalists convened a secret meeting in Philadelphia to make a deal with the Southern Slave States, so as to Consolidate all the Constitutionally Limited Republics into one Consolidated Nation State which would then be an Involuntary Association, whereby any slave anywhere could be hunted down and returned to their masters.

The southern criminals were given an offer by the norther criminals (central bankers) that was heavily biased on the side of the Central Banker Cabal, which ensured that there would be a day of reckoning, which was that ObamaNation called The Civil War.

From the moment the united states became a corporate entity in 1788 there was continuous effort applied by the corporate "president" to enslave all the slaves into slavery. The first major expense of abusing government power was called, falsely, The Whiskey Rebellion, which is then a precedent to compare to Shays's Rebellion in stark contrast to how a Voluntary Free Market Government design did work, in contrast with how an Involuntary False Government does work.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Revolut...

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-tro...

Note: A Voluntary army defeated the British invaders.

A voluntary army attempted to defeat the Massachusetts criminal government (so called Shays's Rebellion)

A CONSCRIPTED army of slaves was assembled by Hamilton and Washington to suppress a slave revolt and to CRUSH a money competitor in Pennsylvania (so called Whiskey Rebellion).

Joe

That doesn't make it right

I agree with what you say except I disagree with 'The necessity of government is forced upon...' I think we should leave out the word "necessity".

I believe there is another way, a better way, which makes the way you described and the way that it typically happens not a "necessity". That is what I am trying to say, lets not let the offenders force us into this false solution. We can change this if we stop accepting theft and force as a necessity and strive for something better. We wont evolve past this unless we change the way we think and stop accepting the status quo.

On Shays's Rebellion - thanks for the commentary and links. Interesting stuff.

Pacifism is destroyed.

Even if you decide to leave out the word "necessity" while the criminals consume the pacifists, eventually the pacifists are no longer in the genetic make-up of human beings, and then what happens?

The concept of necessity is based upon the concept of sustainability.

A living form that consumes itself cannot sustain itself, therefore the living form that consumes itself, by necessity, does not exist.

If the living form does exist, then by necessity, there must be a function working that sustains the living form.

If the living form includes a gross error among the numbers of the living form, such as errors involving mutations whereby some of the individual members of the species are without conscience, sociopaths, psychopaths, pathological liars, criminals, born without parts of the normal brain that operate as "species self-defensive weapons" (conscience), without self defense of the species, those individuals destroy the species, and without a counter to such things, the species would be dominated by those abnormal, unnatural, mutated, sub-species, individuals, who would then destroy the species.

Sources:

http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Human-Destructiveness-Erich-Fr...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sane-Society-Erich-Fromm/dp/080501...

http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Rebellion-robert-lindner/...

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Brain-Evolution-Mass-Century/dp...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lucifer-Principle-Scientific-Exped...

In other words there is a self-defense mechanism which operates as a species protection device and a word that could be used to describe that internal mechanism is human conscience.

Those who will not step in and work to avoid a crime whereby, for example, a mutated criminal human is burning and eating babies alive, standing next to a pile of baby bones, with a line of babies lined up for the next meal, are as abnormal as the criminal cannibal murderer, in the sense that crime equates to individual human beings destroying individual human beings; by commission or omission.

Here, have another baby?

The necessity factor is understood because of human reason, and because of human conscience. Without human conscience there is no reason to preserve the self, perhaps, and no reason to preserve the species.

"I believe there is another way, a better way, which makes the way you described and the way that it typically happens not a "necessity"."

Those words appear to me as another case of someone dreaming up ideas that they have, and then they place those ideas into my steam of conciseness. Whatever it is you think I wrote, to me, you obviously miss the point.

Here is one example of "a better way":

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

That "better way" worked as it was designed to work. That "better way" still works today in places where it works, still, today. The concepts elucidated in that work are easy to understand and to implement, given the opportunity.

Who is in a position to give or take opportunity today?

Moral human beings with operating human conscience are now running amok burning babies alive (or is that a contradiction?), perhaps eating them, perhaps mounting their severed heads as trophies, and if the remaining moral human beings, assuming there are any left, are still financing the sociopaths, financing the psychopaths, financing the criminal cannibal mass murderers, as we speak, if that is going unchecked, in any way, then that process of might making right, that process of violence begetting violence, consumes that life form that was once known as human beings.

The process is well understood by our ancestors.

Example:

http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm

"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 that 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."

What does "transform us into beasts" mean?

The bodies are piling up, as the opportunities are being taken away.

Example:

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvl6kO1Vo8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nn0w_uXStM

Burning people alive.

Child Sex Slavery

Drug Pushers

All made legal, all financed by supposedly moral people, and those crimes are minor compared to the crime of World War.

Examples:

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FD...

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

The supposedly moral people are fooled into thinking that payments paid to the criminals will be investments made to ensure protection from criminals.

That is how that works, and to confuse that with true, defensive, government is an obvious, measurable, and accurately measurable, deception designed to weaken the defensive power of the targeted victims.

"That is what I am trying to say, lets not let the offenders force us into this false solution."

I don't. You don't. Who does that leave?

While we don't take the lie and believe it, there are many, even now, who are voluntarily paying into the FUND (International Monetary FUND for now, and denominated in Federal Reserve Notes for now) so as to accomplish what task?

1.
Torture and mass murder other people, not me yet.

2.
Hire the best liars so that profits can be realized for those who profit from torture and mass murder.

3.
Just following orders, without question, because it is too much work to question those orders.

4.
Avoid a prison term, and possibly worse treatment for failing to pay the extortion fee.

The list can be made by each individual person who pays the extortion fee.

"We can change this if we stop accepting theft and force as a necessity and strive for something better."

That already happened. Slaves fled from England and populated the areas that became states in what became known as America.

Here is evidence:

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."

In between 1776 and 1788, the new voluntary government worked well enough to drive off the largest criminal army of aggression for profit then on the planet Earth. It worked. It was a form of a voluntary government based upon the consent of the governed. It was a Free Market of competitive Constitutionally Limited Republics voluntarily joined into a mutual defense Union under The Articles of Confederation.

The reason for the demise of the voluntary government was well reported by those who saw it being stolen at the time. The Central Bankers of the day could not allow competition to exist, because competition would destroy their plans to create and maintain a Legal Money Monopoly Power which is the False Front that hides a Legal Extortion Racket.

If you don't get it, then you don't get it, despite your obvious, and accurately measurable capacity to understand more than most people.

"On Shays's Rebellion - thanks for the commentary and links. Interesting stuff."

Yes, please note, the people defending Liberty in the so called Revolutionary War were volunteers. The people who defended Liberty in the so called Shay's Rebellion were volunteers. The people who crushed the Spirit of Liberty included Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, as they assembled an army of Slaves (Conscripts) so as to invade Pennsylvania and then destroy a Money Competitor.

How does a person make money? In those days a farmer made money by selling farm products, competitively. Rotten food does not sell. In those days the Central Banking Criminals were busy taking over each State, as they could "get away with it" and in the case of Massachusetts the VICTIMS of the CRIMES perpetrated by the Central Bankers who took over Massachusetts, despite the limits of the Massachusetts Constitution, did what The Declaration of Independence clearly Declares as the duty of all free people, they fought CRIME made LEGAL.

The Central Banking Crime is easy to know, as Central Bankers issue fraudulent money, whereby they get to spend the money they create out of thin air, and then they demand as payment of Involuntary Taxes the PROFITS that everyone produces on their own. In the case of Massachusetts there was no SINGLE MONEY ENFORCED NATION WIDE, so that the TAXES were demanded in GOLD, not in Federal Reserve Notes, and not in National Currency, and what happens when Fraud Money is made, and Fraud Money is used by Frauds in Government, and Gold is then used as money at the same time? The Gold (by Gresham's Law) leaves the area, because importers will not accept the Fraud Money, so Gold must be used to buy imports, and exporters will accept the Fraud Money if nothing else (no Gold) is offered. So Gresham's Law works like a one way check valve (or a diode) in a hydraulic circuit (or an electric circuit) where Gold left Massachusetts.

So farmers stop making grain/corn/wheat/whatever and start making Whiskey, competitive Whiskey, high quality and low cost Whiskey, in a Free Market of MONEY, because that is how Farmers Make Money when the Central Bankers are busy printing Fraud Money and causing Gold to leave the area.

They stop farming long enough to make enough MONEY (in the form of Whiskey) to then have MONEY to buy supplies for farming.

So what do the Central Bankers do next?

They TAX Whiskey, payable in Gold, so as to CRUSH that money competition, and so as to force people to use the Fraudulent Money.

The defenders of Liberty knew the score, so they continued their Duty as their Duty was spelled out in The Declaration of Independence, as the Farmers (Defense of Liberty Veterans) went to take back the Armory in Massachusetts.

The defenders of Liberty were defeated in Massachusetts but the TEST CASE PRECEDENT of how well a Free Market Government Design works, WORKED.

The defenders of Liberty fled the criminal State of Massachusetts, after being defeated by the criminals running Massachusetts, and those defenders of Liberty fled to Vermont.

If all the other victims in Massachusetts understand what was really happening, and they decide to choose better instead of worse, then there would be a mass exodus from Massachusetts to Vermont, as voters and tax payers vote with their feet, making a voluntary choice, volunteering to FINANCE a government that actually does work effectively in defense of Liberty instead of working to make crime pay better for the criminals.

Joe