Taxation is wrong...

Charles Anthony · October 30, 2006

You think I'll chase you from thread to thread whenever your arguments begin to prove threadbare?

Let me remind you of your own question:

BTW, here is an important part of our discussion you should give some thought ...

Taxation deals with personal property: your money.

Who (or what) says whose money it is? On what principle is the ownership of the money asserted?

which changes the topic to one which is thoroughly discussed in a previous thread.

Sorry, not interested.

No doubt. Hugo's defence of anarchy is impeccable and addresses your argument.

Figleaf · October 30, 2006

Hugo's defence of anarchy is impeccable and addresses your argument.

:lol: I doubt it.

theloniusfleabag · October 31, 2006

Dear Figleaf,

QUOTE(Charles Anthony @ Oct 28 2006, 01:36 PM)
Hugo's defence of anarchy is impeccable and addresses your argument.

I doubt it.

I also urge you to give it a read, lengthy though it may be. I 'battled it out' with Hugo over this and a couple of other topics, so my urging may have a bit of 'self-serving egoism' to it, but Hugo was one of the most well-studied people I have ever encountered on the subject. Most of the veteran posters here would agree, he was a towering (if somewhat inflexible) intellect.

Riverwind · October 31, 2006

No doubt. Hugo's defence of anarchy is impeccable and addresses your argument.

Hugo's arguments are internally consistent but choose to ignore human nature. For that reason an anarchist utopia is an impossible dream much like a communist utopia is an impossible dream. From my perspective I see no difference between someone who argues that taxation is inherently immoral and coercive and someone who argues that private property is inherently immoral and exploitive. Anarchism and communism are opposite sides of the same coin.

theloniusfleabag · October 31, 2006

Dear Riverwind,

Hugo's arguments are internally consistent but choose to ignore human nature. For that reason an anarchist utopia is an impossible dream much like a communist utopia is an impossible dream

Nail on the head. (You didn't really need to edit it.)

Charles Anthony once asked me (in regards to anarchy) "What do I fear?" (I couldn't find that post later, it got snowed under) and I can only think to reply...

"The other me."

geoffrey · October 31, 2006

Charles Anthony once asked me (in regards to anarchy) "What do I fear?" (I couldn't find that post later, it got snowed under) and I can only think to reply...
"The other me."

Charles is very clever at playing the emotional side of his argument with questions such as that. I must admit he's one of the few posters that has moved me on the political spectrum... more towards a libertarian viewpoint then I previously held. I'm still not buying his no police argument though...

I don't fear the other me... I fear the loss of law and order. A definitive right and wrong (whether correct or not) with which one can abide by and know that they won't be prosecuted or harmed if they play by the rules. With anarchy, you don't know that. Whoever has the motive and means decides if you were right or wrong and whether you live or die. That person might have to live with the consequences, but unlikely so if they have such power to begin with. Anarchy sounds like it would quickly lead to an all powerful dictatorship of one that has the most resources. Feudalism essientially.

Charles Anthony · October 31, 2006

Charles is very clever at playing the emotional side of his argument with questions such as that.

Nah! I just take things to ridiculous extremes sometimes!

Figleaf · October 31, 2006

Dear Figleaf,
QUOTE(Charles Anthony @ Oct 28 2006, 01:36 PM)
Hugo's defence of anarchy is impeccable and addresses your argument.

I doubt it.

I also urge you to give it a read, lengthy though it may be. I 'battled it out' with Hugo over this and a couple of other topics, so my urging may have a bit of 'self-serving egoism' to it, but Hugo was one of the most well-studied people I have ever encountered on the subject. Most of the veteran posters here would agree, he was a towering (if somewhat inflexible) intellect.

Whatever Hugo's virtues may have been, he cannot have overcome the essential insurmountable fallacy of anarchism: that human society could succeed/continue without coordination & dispute resolution (i.e. government).

PolyNewbie · October 31, 2006

We don't need taxes to have support of government and government services.

Instead of borrowing money to pay for government from private bankers who print money from nothing gov could print money and inject it into the economy by using it to pay for gov services such as police, hospitals, etc.

The fact that we depend on private bankers to print money from nothing and lend it to use at face value shows that its the private central bankers that own and operate government.

See:

The Creature From Jekyll Island (book)

Fantopia (James Gibb Stuart) - book

Secrets Of The Federal Reserve (Eusatce Mullins) - book

Money As Debt (video)

The Money Masters (video)

The Capitalist Conspiracy (video)

An Afternoon With Eustace Mullins (Essay Rense Radio)

The Canadian Action Party website - tutorials on banking here

The fact that money is printed for nothing and lent to us at full face value by private central bankers not only shows the reason for wars and income tax, the control that the central bankers direct over society gives them control over education and medacine as well as technology & the media. Thats why few people know about this. The web is giving people info that the oligarchy doesn't want them too see which is why internet 2 will soon be born.

This is one of the greatest hoaxes ever played on mankind and will continue for as long as people choose to remain ignorant wrt how a dollar comes into existance.

Charles Anthony · October 31, 2006

We don't need taxes to have support of government and government services.

I agree. We could have free-will pay-what-you-can donations.

gov could print money and inject it into the economy by using it to pay for gov services such as police, hospitals, etc.

With all due respect, I would like to encourage your interest in monetary policy and the banking mechanism. I seriously urge you to take a high school or community college level course in economics. In a few short months, you will gain skills that will allow you to speed through more research (both for and against) of your views.

Jerry J. Fortin · October 31, 2006

We don't need taxes to have support of government and government services.
I agree. We could have free-will pay-what-you-can donations.
gov could print money and inject it into the economy by using it to pay for gov services such as police, hospitals, etc.
With all due respect, I would like to encourage your interest in monetary policy and the banking mechanism. I seriously urge you to take a high school or community college level course in economics. In a few short months, you will gain skills that will allow you to speed through more research (both for and against) of your views.

You are harsh! Very carefully but still...............

Charles Anthony · October 31, 2006

You are harsh! Very carefully but still...............

I mean not to be in this instance.

Other than my typing skills and the ability to drive a car, the best thing I got from tax-payer funded education was learning basic economics.

Figleaf · October 31, 2006

We could have free-will pay-what-you-can donations.

That system would fail to generate sufficient revenue to meet program needs, and to capture optimal opportunities for public goods., The problem of free-ridership would make it collapse in short order.

With all due respect, I would like to encourage your interest in monetary policy and the banking mechanism. I seriously urge you to take a high school or community college level course in economics. In a few short months, you will gain skills that will allow you to speed through more research (both for and against) of your views.

Good for you, Charles for passing on the same advice and encouragement I gave to you. It's good to know you're getting something out of our dicussions.

Riverwind · October 31, 2006

Instead of borrowing money to pay for government from private bankers who print money from nothing gov could print money and inject it into the economy by using it to pay for gov services such as police, hospitals, etc.

PN, What would you do if you received an e-mail from someone in Nigeria promising you millions if you would provide your bank account number? Would immediately provide your bank account? Would you investigate further to see if his offer is reasonable? Would you immediately delete the e-mail?

All of the CAP theories are like those e-mails from Nigeria: they are simply too good to be true which means that any reasonable person should assume that there must be a catch even if they do not know what it is.

Charles Anthony · October 31, 2006

What would you do if you received an e-mail from someone in Nigeria promising you millions if you would provide your bank account number?

I have a better recommendation: http://www.419eater.com/

Frankie · November 1, 2006

Taxation in general is not wrong, but income tax is literally a crime.

If you read carefully, the Internal Revenue Code clearly states that income tax, at least in the US, is of volentary compliance. Which clearly means, it's your choice to file a tax return and pay any income tax at all. That's clearly not what the IRS is practicing as they seize your house and all of your assets. Which of course is also illegal, as no where in the Internal Revenue Code or the constitution is that legal. Also it's imortant to mention that the IRC(Internal Revenue Code) doesn't even define it's own use of the word "income". So we take the definition from it's superior legal source, The Constitution. And we discover that a person trading his time and labour for wages doesn't even fall under the category of income tax! For the original definition of "income" is gains or profits from corporate activity, were as the common man being taxed on his labour and wages, isn't even applicable to pay income tax. But all of that is irrelevant as the tax itself is illegal! According to the constituion, all direct taxes must be apportioned, which means ALL tax returns must be distributed back evenly. So a poor shmuck would get the exact same cheque as the rich shmuck in tax returns. That is also not how the IRS is practicing, which makes their whole system illegal. To make matters clearer, in the early 20th century, the banks tried to inforce income tax on the working man, but was regected by the supreme court, which resulted in the 16th amendmant which states that NO new power for the banks or anyone to collect income tax was granted.

"There is no constitutional basis for tax on the wages of American living and working in all the 50 states of United States, period! End of argument." - Petter Gibbons, Tax Attorney

Riverwind · November 1, 2006

Taxation in general is not wrong, but income tax is literally a crime. "There is no constitutional basis for tax on the wages of American living and working in all the 50 states of United States, period! End of argument." - Petter Gibbons, Tax Attorney

More BS from the 'I read it on the Internet so it must be true file."....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7151524/

By 1913, Congress gave it one more shot, and the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, which says:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Some modern tax skeptics claim this amendment was not properly ratified. Alas, so far, none of them have been able to convince a federal court of the validity of their claim.

PolyNewbie · November 1, 2006

Jerry Fortin/Charles Anthony:With all due respect, I would like to encourage your interest in monetary policy and the banking mechanism. I seriously urge you to take a high school or community college level course in economics

I've studied a few university courses in economics, known many other who have had more plus high level economists that agree with my point of view.

Perhaps you should take a little of your own advice or explain to me why it must be private banks and not goverments that collect the seigniorage on our money.

You could also read "Fantopia" by James Gibb Stuart.

You should expand your horizons a bit before dishing out advice like that.

PolyNewbie · November 1, 2006

Riverwind:they are simply too good to be true which means that any reasonable person should assume that there must be a catch even if they do not know what it is.

There isn't a catch to this. The fact is that the bankers have been dictating educational policy for over 50 years and have prevented people from considering this. Bankers do this through focus groups, etc that influence legislation.

There is a lot of high powered thinking that goes behind CAP policy on monetary reform.

I cannot imagine how there could be an advantage to allowing private banks to collect seigniorage on our money. The fact that they do tells me they run the show. If they run the show they don't want us thinking of such things - for reasons that are too obvious to spell out here.

PolyNewbie · November 1, 2006

Interview on monetary reform - explains that the view of gov printing money has been suppressed by media and publishers.

Government Printing Money / James Stuart Gibb

Charles Anthony · November 1, 2006

explain to me why it must be private banks and not goverments that collect the seigniorage on our money.

You are getting a few issues mixed up.

Your original statement:

Instead of borrowing money to pay for government from private bankers who print money from nothing gov could print money and inject it into the economy by using it to pay for gov services such as police, hospitals, etc.

is a grave mistake.

The value of money (or any commodity) is affected by its scarcity. If governments just printed money to pay for services, the value of the money would go down because there would be more of it in circulation. As a result, we would see prices rise.

Prices rising in of itself is not the biggest problem. If governments did this (without injecting anything of intrinsic value) to the market, prices would rise unpredictably. This makes investment and consumption planning for both individuals and industry difficult. As a result, there is less business and the economy is less productive than it otherwise could be.

PolyNewbie · November 1, 2006

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

There is a plethora of information about this - and books. The UK has a monetary reform movement as well.

I am not getting the issues mixed up. Currently private bankers collect the seigniorage on our money instead of governments and that is a fact and you are the one that is mixed up. Perhaps it is you that should go to high school and take a course in logic.

BTW: Printing money for nothing is the same thing as collecting seigniorage

PolyNewbie · November 1, 2006

When private bankers print money for nothing they manage money supply for their own interests. When government does it the public forces them to manage money supply in the publics interest. That is the difference.

Charles Anthony · December 5, 2006

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.

BTW: Printing money for nothing is the same thing as collecting seigniorage

You can call it that if you want. I call it debasing the currency.

Anyway, the currency belongs to the government. Therefore, I suppose they have the right to do what ever they want with it.

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

When private bankers print money for nothing they manage money supply for their own interests.

It is a two-way street.

When I go to the bank, I receive credit for my own interests.

When government does it the public forces them to manage money supply in the publics interest. That is the difference.

What is the public's interest with respect to the money supply anyway????

Here is something a little more exciting:

The singing eunuch tax-collectors

The new shock strategy, in which sari-clad and heavily made-up eunuchs accompany officials on their rounds of crowded shopping areas in a country notorious for tax evasion and non-payment, has already been declared a big success.

Metro.co.uk

How low will the tax-man go?

theloniusfleabag · December 5, 2006

Dear Charles Anthony,

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'. In this age, more electronic transfers occur, so it would not be a cataclysmic event, unless you mean that the gov't stopped 'giving value' to a national currency. 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'. Edited December 11, 2006 by theloniusfleabag