Taxation is wrong...

[Figleaf]

Private banks currently print money from nothing. What would be the difference if gov did it instead ?

The difference is that the banks do not force you to do business with the banks whereas the government threatens you with imprisonment if you do not pay the government.

The banks will initiate forcible confiscation of your goods if you don't pay them.

[Charles Anthony]

The banks will initiate forcible confiscation of your goods if you don't pay them.

The private banks are not forcing you to do business with them. When you make a deposit in a bank, you are consenting to a contract under their terms.

What do you think will happen if the banks and the governments stops "printing" money?

Several things would happen. Money wears out (paper bills much faster than coin), so currency would become 'scarce'.

The lack of actual paper bills is a minor issue. We can write our own I.O.U.s if we had no currency.

unless you mean that the gov't stopped 'giving value' to a national currency.

Hm.... the government really can not give value to our fiat currency. The government can only take away its value by creating more currency and thus debasing the rest of the currency in circulation -- a form of taxation.

In that case, I suspect all of the previous minting capabilities would be geared towards making firearms and ammunition, and transactions and disputes of 'ownership' would be settled by the Law Offices of 'Gimme, Gimme and Blam'.

Interesting. I never really thought of it that way.

Lo and behold! What have we here?

SOMALIA: ISLAMISTS BEGIN 'JIHAD' TAX COLLECTION

Islamists who control Somalia's capital Mogadishu say they have begun collecting taxes to raise money to fund a holy war against foreign troops in the Horn of Africa country. The Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) - an alliance of imams and businessmen - captured Mogadishu nearly six months ago and have since implemented Islamic Sharia law, closed cinemas and prohibited football games. Islamists in Karan district, north Mogadishu, have been seen collecting taxes from people trading in livestock, but until now no levies have been imposed on businesses operating in the capital, Mogadishu-based Radio Shabelle reported Monday.

--

Announcing the tax collection campaign, the UIC has specified the levies it willl charge on livestock: a goat trader will pay 5,000 Somali shillings (7 US cents) while a cow trader will pay 10,000 (14 US cents) and a camel trader will pay 20,000 (1.05 US dollars). It was not immedialtely clear what other businesses based in the capital would be charged.

Adn Kronos International

I am sure the farmers care about funding a war. I wonder if the war-mongering businesses will be taxed too -- given that they produce nothing, taxing them would be moot, I suppose.

The first impetus of taxation: warring states.

[Renegade]

The lack of actual paper bills is a minor issue. We can write our own I.O.U.s if we had no currency.

In Hong Kong it is actually the banks that issue currency under authority of the government body. Without government currency, and assuming the government didn't stop it, the banks would step in and create and issue currency which would be the defacto legal tender.

Note-issuing Banks

The Government, through the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), has given authorization to three commercial banks, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., the Standard Chartered Bank, and the Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, to issue currency notes in Hong Kong

Notes and Coins of Hong Kong

[reffric]

Hm.... the government really can not give value to our fiat currency. The government can only take away its value by creating more currency and thus debasing the rest of the currency in circulation -- a form of taxation.

Actually the bank of canada and the government fiscal policy can add value to the Canadian currency in a number of ways. Drawdowns, sale of government bonds, Sale and Repurchase agreements, adjustments of the bank rate and debt management to name a few.

[Figleaf]

The banks will initiate forcible confiscation of your goods if you don't pay them.

The private banks are not forcing you to do business with them. When you make a deposit in a bank, you are consenting to a contract under their terms.

Gee, that's not unlike the reciprocal obligations people accept to live in society with one another.

[Renegade]

Gee, that's not unlike the reciprocal obligations people accept to live in society with one another.

That may be true if we had a variety of societies to chose from and accepted reciprocal obligations from the one which we accepted. With a bank, if I am not happy with the terms I can walk across the street to a different bank, or arrange financing through a multitude of other means. IOW the barrier of swiching provider is quite low. For a society there is no easy way to switch without incurring significant costs and penalties.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

We can write our own I.O.U.s if we had no currency.

That is what scrip (or currency) is, really, nothing more than an IOU. (But 'IOU' what?) 'Payable to the bearer' is the notion, but the point is that rather than a personal cheque (which promises the same thing), the gov't is actually good for it.

I wonder if the war-mongering businesses will be taxed too -- given that they produce nothing, taxing them would be moot, I suppose.

Spoils, my friend, war produces spoils. Then they can be taxed.

An interesting side-note on currency...one of my customers yesterday told me that he made a purchase in a sporting goods store on the weekend, (a large chain one) and he received a foreign coin amongst his change. He said "Hey, this isn't a penny", and the clerk basically refused to exchange it, replying "Well, it looks like a penny". My customer didn't pursue the matter, since the worst that could happen was that he would be out a penny, but I found it odd that the store clerk would not exchange it, perhaps thinking that he could easily fob off the coin onto someone else. Did it make the coin legitimate if both accepted it as currency? Not really, for my customer tried to stop that cycle.

Not sure what the coin was, but would it inflate (or deflate) the value of the Mongo or the Zloty if they look like pennies?

[PolyNewbie]

I got a "10 pence" coin that looks the same as a quarter in metal content and size. It looks like we are minting coins for some other country that are the same as our quarters. We do minting for other countries up here. I think we print the Federal Reserve/Illuminati Promisary coins as well.

I saved the coin and dropped it in my junk silver collection. I can always use a magnet to find fiat coins that are in there. Real money doesn't stick to a magnet.

[reffric]

I got a "10 pence" coin that looks the same as a quarter in metal content and size. It looks like we are minting coins for some other country that are the same as our quarters. We do minting for other countries up here. I think we print the Federal Reserve/Illuminati Promisary coins as well.

I saved the coin and dropped it in my junk silver collection. I can always use a magnet to find fiat coins that are in there. Real money doesn't stick to a magnet.

What are you talking about?

[Figleaf]

Gee, that's not unlike the reciprocal obligations people accept to live in society with one another.

That may be true if we had a variety of societies to chose from and accepted reciprocal obligations from the one which we accepted.

In Canada and most other free societies you can go off an search for your state of preference at any time and even come back if you don't find one you like.

[Renegade]

In Canada and most other free societies you can go off an search for your state of preference at any time and even come back if you don't find one you like.

The problem is not that I can't find a state of my preference, it is that there are huge barriers to being able to coming to agreement between me and the state on accepting reciprocal obligations. Here are but a few examples:

1. I have to be physically present and reside in that state. It would be great if I can just delcare myself a citizen of Cayman Islands but not have to physically move there. I could pay taxes to the Cayman government and I would accept obligations of that society and they in turn would accept obligations toward me. Unfortunately that's not the way it works. I would at substantial cost have to move myself, and posessions to be physically there. This requirement also means that I would have to make non-monetary sacrifices as well, such as not being in proximity to extended family. In addition, my spouse may not wish to make the same state choice as I would.

2. The state has to accept me. It is not simply a matter of me "choosing". The state has to choose me as well, and the process of the state choosing me is far from painless.

While in theory you are right that I can choose a state of my preference, in practice the barriers to choosing are so high that it makes the theory moot.

[frogs]

All taxation is wrong because it is always abusive to the community. All necessities, food, etc, are best served with the free market system vs the taxation system. License, permits, land sale, and monopolies are also forms of taxation which by definition hurt the community. If it's OK for teachers and cops to steal, then it's OK for everyone to steal, which of course, it isn't. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them, you may go to jail for life, under the tax system. Without tax there is no crime, because criminals know you can legally kill them. Cops won't try to extort protection money from anyone, because you can kill them too. A little taxation creates a huge problem. Every major city in the US is a great example of that. The US constitution states that 39 (fraudulent) people, who claimed to be "We, the people" have the right to steal the peoples money. There is not one congressman that can represent me or millions of other Americans. They are frauds. No individual is bound by a contract (even if it isn't fraudulent) that he doesn't sign. And certainly not bound by 39 long dead scammers, even if they weren't scammers! Under the tax system, we put a thief in jail for stealing, and then allow the system to steal from us to keep him there! If that isn't a scam, then scam must be the name of some imported delicacy made from the toes of Ethiopian bipolar cross bred centipedes.

[Figleaf]

In Canada and most other free societies you can go off an search for your state of preference at any time and even come back if you don't find one you like.

The problem is not that I can't find a state of my preference, it is that there are huge barriers to being able to coming to agreement between me and the state on accepting reciprocal obligations. Here are but a few examples:

1. I have to be physically present and reside in that state. It would be great if I can just delcare myself a citizen of Cayman Islands but not have to physically move there.

Obviously any society in whcih you reside will require you to conform to the structures people there live by. If you wish to live in Burmuda, why would you expect Bermudans to let you live there but by the rules of Cayman instead of Bermuda.

For this reason your objection 1 appears unreasonable.

2. The state has to accept me.

That's between you and your target state. The state you're leaving has no reason to concern itself with your destination or how you fare there.

While in theory you are right that I can choose a state of my preference, in practice the barriers to choosing are so high that it makes the theory moot.

It doesn't make the theory moot, it simply imposes the risks/costs on the departing dissenter. People unhappy in Canada can go. It matters not at all where they go.

[frogs]

The "state" one lives in is not a legitimate entity, it is a fraud, and no fraudulent entity, has any rights or regard to the people living there, just as no fraudulent contract has legal or otherwise validity. A scam has no rights, and all "states" are scams by constitution, intention, their non-representation of the people, and their out and out lies! The "state" has no right to exist ANYWHERE, and as a matter of fact, the only duty of a "state" is to kill itself, because of the negative influence it has on everything.

[Riverwind]

The "state" one lives in is not a legitimate entity

You can rant as much as you want about the "state", however, the overwhelming majority of people see the "state" as a legimate and necessary part of human society. Let's put this another way: why do you think you have any rights? Why should anyone else care about the "rights" that you claim to have?

[Renegade]

Obviously any society in whcih you reside will require you to conform to the structures people there live by. If you wish to live in Burmuda, why would you expect Bermudans to let you live there but by the rules of Cayman instead of Bermuda.

For this reason your objection 1 appears unreasonable.

Why do you impose the constraint that I must "reside" in a society? Is geographic boundary and separation the only way to distinguish a society? For example, if I am Roman Catholic, I belong to that society and it is irrelevant where I actually reside. I accept their rule, and responsiblities and in essence I choose to be part of that society. Residency is not a requirement.

My objection appears perfectly reasonable to me, based upon your theory that I choose my society. My objection is that my residency prevents me from freely choosing a society, and I have shown examples of societies where residency is irrelevant.

That's between you and your target state. The state you're leaving has no reason to concern itself with your destination or how you fare there.

Of course the state I`m leaving wouldn`t care a damn where I choose to live; I didn`t say it did. (Actually in some cases it does, but that is subject of a different thead). What I said was that because a new society has to accept me, and their standards exclude me, then I don`t really have the choice you seem to portray, do I?

Let me give you and example. Let`s say I have some serious medical condition, one that needs lots of expensive care. Now, let say I am a non-resident, non-Citizen of Canada, however, I feel very much in agreement with Canadian values, and responsiblites and obligations of that society. Even if I choose Canada, Canada won`t choose me because my medical condition will likely make me ineligible for immigration.

Ìt`s not really choice if the barriers to choice are quite high.

It doesn't make the theory moot, it simply imposes the risks/costs on the departing dissenter. People unhappy in Canada can go. It matters not at all where they go.

The theory is not moot just because you say so. At least you acknowledge that there are risks and costs associated to the person departing. Do you acknowledge that if the cost to leaving was high enough, then in effect that precludes the choice of choosing a society? What if the cost was $1Million to leave? What if it was $1 billion, is it an obstacle?

[frogs]

The "state" one lives in is not a legitimate entity

You can rant as much as you want about the "state", however, the overwhelming majority of people see the "state" as a legimate and necessary part of human society. Let's put this another way: why do you think you have any rights? Why should anyone else care about the "rights" that you claim to have?

That is a VERY good point from the standpoint that very many people feel that way. I am glad you mention it. It is as logical as gang rape. Because that is exactly what it is. And the "gang" will give you any rights you like, so long as they can rape you. You can even vote for who you want to rape you first, or who you want to steal your money, etc. If the gang is the majority, let's say 300 million, "all but me", that doesn't make rape or robbery of me correct or advantageous, (even if I thought i might enjoy it sometimes!) In fact, the exact opposite is true, don't you agree?

Maybe not. Let me put it this way. If 275 million people think it's a good idea to rape your mother (25 million against), then it's OK, because of vast majority rule? Do you always believe in vast majority rule, or only sometimes? I'd like to know, really I would. To me, the only "right" is decency, and that doesn't include rape or robbery. And everyone "should" care about decency, because it makes sense fro everybody. That's why it's called "decent".

I may be wrong, but I sense that you have a strong desire to be right, instead of understanding what's right. It takes less logic, but creates lots of psychological problems. And don't worry, even if 275 million people believe in rape, I still do not.

[Riverwind]

It is as logical as gang rape.

You a making a moral judgement about gang rape. Who decides what is moral or immoral? In most societies gang rape is unquestionably repugnant, however, it if worthwhile asking why. If you think about it you will realize that the answer is "because the majority of people said so". Ultimately that is where all of society's morals come from. That makes all of us slaves to what others decide is moral no matter what we think and our only practical option is to accept the terms or go find a cave in the mountains somewhere. Fortunately, our society does make free speech a virtue so you are free to rant about the morality of the "state". However, you will never change anyone's mind unless you can present a positive alternative that actually addresses the problems that "states" are designed to fix. I don't believe such an alternative exists.

[frogs]

It is as logical as gang rape.

You a making a moral judgement about gang rape. Who decides what is moral or immoral? In most societies gang rape is unquestionably repugnant, however, it if worthwhile asking why. If you think about it you will realize that the answer is because the majority of people said so. Ultimately that is where all of society's morals come from. That makes all of us slaves to what others decide is moral no matter what we think and our only practical option is to accept the terms or go find a cave in the mountains somewhere. Fortunately, our society does make free speech a virtue so your a free to rant about the morality of the "state". However, you will never change anyone's mind unless you can present a postive alternative that actual addresses the problems that "states" are designed to fix. I don't beleive such an alternative exists.

Another good answer, and i thank you. Yes, it appears that you are willing to accept the morals and ideas of the majority. Einstein called that mindless. But, he was wrong about a few things, .. some he corrected later in life. I have had the privilege of changing more than a few peoples minds about morals, based on logic. I do have the option of living in a cave, of course, but choose to live among the abusers whose morals are created by the state, because it's more fun! Although I must keep "in step" to a degree, I take great pleasure in having the wherewithall to flaunt my mind's (if not my body's) freedom. It is true, the state can fine me, kidnap me, etc, but the great pleasure of my mind's freedom makes that very worthwhile! Once I had the pleasure of being thrown out of jail! Pronto! Hilarious! The little fine money they get from me, they will waste, so as not to appreciably advance their "morals". Gotta love it!

[Riverwind]

Yes, it appears that you are willing to accept the morals and ideas of the majority. Einstein called that mindless.

Really? Have you ever stopped to consider that the state fills a role that is essential to the comfortable existence you have today? Without states to provide the necessary social stability most of us would still be dirt farmers on someones feudal estate. Your rants against the state are not particularly logical - you are simply expressing a narcissistic world view that is not appealing to many people. Furthermore, you certainly aren't expressing much freedom of mind - you seem to be chained to anti-state ideology that is at least as intellectually confining as any other extremist social or religious ideology. Pragmatists that can weigh both the benefits and costs in all things are the people with the true freedom of mind.

[Figleaf]

The "state" one lives in is not a legitimate entity, it is a fraud, and no fraudulent entity, has any rights or regard to the people living there, just as no fraudulent contract has legal or otherwise validity.

Posters with nics ending in "gs" don't exist. They're just a scam.

So, frogs, now that I've written that, it must be true. Just like your comment, right?

A scam has no rights, and all "states" are scams...

I certainly agree that a state has no 'rights' separate from its people.

The "state" has no right to exist ANYWHERE,

People create states. Who's to say they have no 'right' to do that?

[Figleaf]

Obviously any society in whcih you reside will require you to conform to the structures people there live by. If you wish to live in Burmuda, why would you expect Bermudans to let you live there but by the rules of Cayman instead of Bermuda.

For this reason your objection 1 appears unreasonable.

Why do you impose the constraint that I must "reside" in a society?

I don't.

My objection appears perfectly reasonable to me, based upon your theory that I choose my society. My objection is that my residency prevents me from freely choosing a society,

You've ignored my comment and simply restated your opinion. The issue is not whether you can successfully find a society that you prefer, it's whether the society you start in is unfree. Canada is not unfree because it allows for you to leave at will. It's not Canada's business to worry out where you want to go instead.

What I said was that because a new society has to accept me, and their standards exclude me, then I don`t really have the choice you seem to portray, do I?

Whether you like the available choices out there is beside the point.

Let me give you and example. Let`s say I have some serious medical condition, one that needs lots of expensive care. Now, let say I am a non-resident, non-Citizen of Canada, however, I feel very much in agreement with Canadian values, and responsiblites and obligations of that society. Even if I choose Canada, Canada won`t choose me because my medical condition will likely make me ineligible for immigration.

So?

It doesn't make the theory moot, it simply imposes the risks/costs on the departing dissenter. People unhappy in Canada can go. It matters not at all where they go.

... At least you acknowledge that there are risks and costs associated to the person departing.

As with anything.

Do you acknowledge that if the cost to leaving was high enough, then in effect that precludes the choice of choosing a society?

The fact there are inherent difficulties in a course of action is not the same thing as someone prohibiting the action.

You seem to be trying to arguing that Canada is not free because Russia sucks and France has tight standards.

[frogs]

The "state" one lives in is not a legitimate entity, it is a fraud, and no fraudulent entity, has any rights or regard to the people living there, just as no fraudulent contract has legal or otherwise validity.

Posters with nics ending in "gs" don't exist. They're just a scam.

So, frogs, now that I've written that, it must be true. Just like your comment, right?

A scam has no rights, and all "states" are scams...

I certainly agree that a state has no 'rights' separate from its people.

The "state" has no right to exist ANYWHERE,

People create states. Who's to say they have no 'right' to do that?

Logic and honesty. Have you met them? You run from them. Supporters of state believe they have the right to steal from everyone. George Washington said it best. "Make no mistake. Government is force." Force was necessary because the people didn't want it. Force would have been counterproductive to his aims if the people had supported his ideas. Some people fought with him for his promises, etc. , but an honest reading of the constitution will reveal to you its lie. I can't teach you honesty. The lie is the lie, no matter how you'd like to color it. All states do the same, because it's easy! But, force is always necessary, because the people don't want it. Even today the cops carry guns in the cities and in many cities it is illegal for you to carry one. Jefferson said the main reason for the citizens right to bear arms was to protect them from the government. Well, fancy that. But you have no interest in what is correct. You only wish to protect your legless life's construct, so no amount of reality is going affect that. I've been there! According to you, people create gang rape, so it's OK, then. All the voting of centuries, will only make things worse, as is evidenced in all the major cities in the US. Honesty is crucial to any logic, and any state, but in any state's government, honesty is not the rule, but the exception. Example. Every cop of 3 months or more in every major city, breaks the law every minute. How's that? Easy. They are sworn to uphold the law. It is illegal for them not to report lawbreakers. Every cop of 3 months or more, has seen a number of times the cops break the law, but don't report them. That is breaking the law and their oath of office. Every minute they don't report it, they are breaking the law. Is this what the people want? NO! So the people do not support the system at all really, and neither do the cops, but the cops are perfectly willing to support the system because they get their income from it and it makes them feel like big boys, now. So now your thoughts will flee to why don't they change the system? Very valid point! The system, according to Jefferson, and Washington, and many others must be changed from without the system. They are correct in this. So, in summary, all cops are thieves and law breakers, and support a system they don't even believe in, and neither do the so called representatives, mayors, and judges, etc... they all know it's all about stealing, but of course, they are not allowed by the system to say so, or they'd lose their jobs. The lies of the system are admitted in the newspapers everyday. To deny that is really to deny reality, not because anyone says so, but because it exists, it's real, it's undeniable, to any honest person. To the dishonest, 2 and 2 equals 4 in the US, and in Canada, but in China it's just a law firm!

[Riverwind]

Jefferson said the main reason for the citizens right to bear arms was to protect them from the government.

Jefferson likely said no such thing - if he did you are probably quoting out of context since Jefferson was a enthusiastic and unrepentant supporter of gov'ts and states. For example, Jefferson did say this:

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary

IOW - citizens need arms to protect the integrity of the state - not to protect themselves from the state. There is a huge difference.

[frogs]

Jefferson said the main reason for the citizens right to bear arms was to protect them from the government.

Jefferson likely said no such thing - if he did you are probably quoting out of context since Jefferson was a enthusiastic and unrepentant supporter of gov'ts and states. For example, Jefferson did say this:

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary

IOW - citizens need arms to protect the integrity of the state - not to protect themselves from the state. There is a huge difference.

Well, Jefferson did say that, but doesn't matter WHO said it, it's obvious, to anyone who doesn't aspire to be a thief that IT makes sense. Jefferson also said that a nation requires a revolution every 20 years to protect the people from the government. But, again, it doesn't matter WHO said it, any non-thief knows it's true. Which makes me think that at one time, if not now, you were on the government payroll! That's about the only way you can be this naive. Not to belittle you, I'm not perfect either. But truth is a simple thing, and stealing by anyone or any group is still theft, and abusive, and stupid.