Taxation is wrong...

[Riverwind]

But truth is a simple thing, and stealing by anyone or any group is still theft, and abusive, and stupid.

If a group of people get together and agree to live by a set of rules then who is to say that they cannot do so? States exist because the people living in them agree with the rules. People who don't agree are free to leave. It is ridiculous for you to think that you can impose your morality on other people.

[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?

Logic and honesty. Have you met them? You run from them.

Save the blther, please, and stick to the issues.

Supporters of state believe they have the right to steal from everyone.

If you can define 'steal' in a way that allows your comment to make any sense, I'll be surprised.

I can't teach you honesty.

No, You can't.

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.

?We've exchanged two posts. How do you know what I'm interested in?

Anyway, I actually agree with Jefferson on that. So what?

[frogs]

Pragmatists that can weigh both the benefits and costs in all things are the people with the true freedom of mind.

The minimum wage earner in the US earns $8,000 a week, but will not see the money, due to government theft (that means taking someone's money, property, time or whatever belongs to them), government waste, government monopolies, and theft from the community. The list of these thefts is so long, that the government would prefer not detailing it all. The president and congress, would prefer just to keep taking everyuone's money and time, etc, and they have the pleasure of knowing, in their free minds (that have been bought and paid for by others), that they are making a little chunk from this scam.

[Riverwind]

The list of these thefts is so long, that the government would prefer not detailing it all.

Right. So you think that roads just build themselves? There are some interesting and well thought out arguements for anachism, however, you are not expressing them. You thoughts come across as the ramblings of a self obsessed ideologue who does not really know what he is talking about.

[frogs]

You said, "Right. So you think that roads just build themselves? "

And food doesn't grow itself, oh, my, it does, doesn't it with a little non-governmental help. My, I didn't think of that. And buildings are never built without gov help. Well, OK lots of times they are I admit it.

And if people didn't have electricity, they would never think of paying for it! Well, OK, they would just like when they need a plumber. And Roads, oh, that's right, you covered that one already. And people would never be able to pay for tires, oh, yeah, you're right, they do that already, and health care, oh that's right they do pay for that already, in the US. Well, now let's see, what else do people need that they aren't able to pay for with out gov help. Condos! Well, OK, sometimes they do.

In truth, the best argument for anarchism is the President and Congress. That's all that is necessary!

[Riverwind]

And food doesn't grow itself, oh, my, it does, doesn't it with a little non-governmental help.

The gov't is essential to our food system. When people die because of food borne diseases it is the gov't that finds out why. It is the gov't that establishes regulations that ensure the companies that produce and distribute the food have to meet minimum standards. There are many essential services which cannot be efficiently and effectively provided by private enterprise. This is obvious to most people which is why the most people have no problem with concept of gov't and are only interested in talking about which services the gov't should provide.

[Renegade]

I don't.

Good. So, are there are there any available societies that you are aware of which I can join and form a social contract with (in lieu of Canadian society), but yet not have to change my place of residency?

You've ignored my comment and simply restated your opinion.

No I haven't ignored your comment. You comment was precluded upon residence ("any society in whcih you reside...") so I question why. Apparently now you concede that residency is not a criteria.

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.

Apparently then, we are discussing different issues. I don't remember saying that Canada was unfree. I'm not even saying that's an issue.

The issue I'm discussing is your contention that we choose our society, and so we choose the social contract.

Am I misinterpreting your statement?

What I am contending is that it isn't choosing if there aren't available choices or that the barrier to effecting the choice is high.

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

No, I have said nothing about liking or disliking the available choices. You seem to have inferred that. What I contend is that I can't practically make a choice at all.

If I go to the store in the middle of the desert to buy food, and the only food they have is figs, and no other stores are reachable, then there is a pretense of choice, but no real choice exists.

So?

Clearly you don't see the issue that very little if any choice exists, so you are unable to grasp how the example addresses the issue.

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

You avoided answering my question. Do you agree that at some point when the difficulties are onerous enough it is in effect a prohibition?

By your reasoning, someone in slavery actually has the choice to be free, he just has to overcome the "difficulties" of escaping his bonds of slavery, and take the risks of being shot as he tries to escape.

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

I don't think I brought up Canada once. I didn't say Canada wasn't free. (If I did, show me where.).

Understand my message because you are misinterpreting it.

If you either don't have available choices or the the barrier to making the choice is high then in effect you cannot be said to "choose".

[Riverwind]

If you either don't have available choices or the the barrier to making the choice is high then in effect you cannot be said to "choose

This is exactly why I think you cannot describe an anarchist society as a free society. In such a society the overwhelming majority of people will be trapped by their economic means and will have little ability to change the circumstances that life imposes on them. So this is not really a choice between freedom or unfreedom. It is really a question of balancing freedoms vs. social constraints in a way that maximizes freedom for the largest number of people. The system we have now does that. The anarchist system would simply give maximum freedom to the economic elite and deny to everyone else.

[Figleaf]

I don't.

Good. So, are there are there any available societies that you are aware of which I can join and form a social contract with (in lieu of Canadian society), but yet not have to change my place of residency?

Well, it was you who broached the idea of non-territorial societies like religions or clubs... but by the context of your question, I think you are now again refering to territorial-based societies. In which case, the point of you question there eludes me.

You've ignored my comment and simply restated your opinion.

No I haven't ignored your comment. You comment was precluded upon residence ("any society in whcih you reside...") so I question why. Apparently now you concede that residency is not a criteria.

I think there is some confusion in this exchange. In this exchange, originally I had suggested that free western countries are consensual societies. You replied: "That may be true if we had a variety of societies to chose from and accepted reciprocal obligations from the one which we accepted." We are now debating whether the freedom to leave is sufficient to make a society consensual, are we not? Conceptually, 'leaving' doesn't need to be physical departure from a given territory, so I don't need to 'concede' residency as a criterion or not.

... The issue I'm discussing is your contention that we choose our society, and so we choose the social contract. Am I misinterpreting your statement?

Hmmm. I'm not sure whether we're discussing the same thing completely or not. I'm not saying we choose which society to be born into, and obviously no-one presents you with a checklist of social contract terms to look over. I am saying that because you can leave Canada, by staying, Canadians can assert/assume that you are accepting the social contract as we provide it.

If I go to the store in the middle of the desert to buy food, and the only food they have is figs, and no other stores are reachable, then there is a pretense of choice, but no real choice exists.

There may be no alternatives, but the choice (to buy the figs or not) still exists.

Do you agree that at some point when the difficulties are onerous enough it is in effect a prohibition?

Certainly not. For years it appeared to be impossible to scale Mt. Everest. But it was not prohibited. Then someone did it, and no-one stopped them, or punished them. Difficulties are inherent factors, prohibitions are deliberately applied by external agencies.

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

I don't think I brought up Canada once. I didn't say Canada wasn't free. (If I did, show me where.).

Understand my message because you are misinterpreting it.

Sorry, I was speaking allegorically. Substitute in "Country A", "Country B", and "Country C", respectively.

[GostHacked]

Not sure how it plays out here in Canada, but in the US, it seems there is no law that requires you to pay taxes.

There is a clip on CNN's website today. (only video, no text link) go and see it.

So maybe we should actually look into this and see if we are legaly obligated to pay taxes (Canada and the US) Ok we are forced to pay taxes. What if there is no law about paying taxes? Then everyone sent to jail on tax evasion would have been wrong.

I have not done my taxes in the last 3 years, lazy more than anything. I know if I owed the government they would be on my ass in a hurry. But since the last 3 years I know I would have gotten money back, I have not been bothered. Does that not sound strange to you?

[Renegade]

Well, it was you who broached the idea of non-territorial societies like religions or clubs... but by the context of your question, I think you are now again refering to territorial-based societies. In which case, the point of you question there eludes me.

My original response was that society doesn't have to be restricted by territory of residence. (A point you seem to agree with).

Since you can't infer my point, I will directly state it. Governments have put huge barriers around any of our abilities to choose which society we form a social contract with. Most of the obligations in the social contract are to societies which define themselves by geographic boundries (aka countries). If I want to form a different social contract with another society which is not defined geographically, (say the Catholic church), the Canadian governemnent will not "release" me from my social contract, if I continue to reside in Canada.

This requirement for residency precludes a free choice of which society to belong to.

In this exchange, originally I had suggested that free western countries are consensual societies.

Uh no. This is the first time you have even mentioned "free western countries". Go back and check.

Conceptually, 'leaving' doesn't need to be physical departure from a given territory, so I don't need to 'concede' residency as a criterion or not.

I'd love to here more about how you think this is possible. Let's take Canada as an example. Let's say I do not agree with the social contract imposed by Canada. Please tell me how do I conceptually "leave" without physically departing. By "leaving" I mean no longer having any obligations nor benefits imposed by the social contract and no longer considered part of the Canadian community.

I am saying that because you can leave Canada, by staying, Canadians can assert/assume that you are accepting the social contract as we provide it.

By "leave" I'm going to assume you mean leave Canadian society but not necessarily physically depart.

And what I'm saying is that for you to assert acceptance of the social contract, you need more preconditions to be met than just Canada letting you leave. Those preconditions to assume acceptance should be that there are other societies avaiable to you, and it is relatively easy to transition to those societies.

Blacks in South Africa were free to leave during the time of apartheid. For the ones that didn't leave (the vast majority), do you conclude that they accepted a social contract that made them subservient to their white masters? I don't. I conclude that a contract was forced upon them in a situation where they had very little choice.

There may be no alternatives, but the choice (to buy the figs or not) still exists.

I'm not sure if you really being obstinate or you really believe that. The choice to buy or not , where there is the lack of alternatives is a choice to die or not die. No one else would consider that a choice, and it woudl seem ludricous that you do.

An armed robber puts a gun to your head and says "your money or your life", so you give him your money. When he is caught, he argues in court that you "accepted" to give him the money, because aferall you had a choice, so it wasnt' robbery at all. That justifcation would seem analogous to yours.

Do you agree that at some point when the difficulties are onerous enough it is in effect a prohibition?

Certainly not. For years it appeared to be impossible to scale Mt. Everest. But it was not prohibited. Then someone did it, and no-one stopped them, or punished them. Difficulties are inherent factors, prohibitions are deliberately applied by external agencies.

Wow. I've concluded that you really are just being obstinate.

Perhaps probibition is not an appropriate word. Let me try and rephrase:

"Do you agree that when the difficulties in completing an action are onerous enough, you can reasonably call the action practically impossible to achieve?"

[Renegade]

If you either don't have available choices or the the barrier to making the choice is high then in effect you cannot be said to "choose

This is exactly why I think you cannot describe an anarchist society as a free society. In such a society the overwhelming majority of people will be trapped by their economic means and will have little ability to change the circumstances that life imposes on them. So this is not really a choice between freedom or unfreedom. It is really a question of balancing freedoms vs. social constraints in a way that maximizes freedom for the largest number of people. The system we have now does that. The anarchist system would simply give maximum freedom to the economic elite and deny to everyone else.

RW, you seem to be arguing both sides. Earlier you said:

States exist because the people living in them agree with the rules. People who don't agree are free to leave.

If you characterize people as "free to leave" in our society, then they are just as "free to leave" in an anarchist society. The people who in an anarchist society are "trapped by their economic means" are free to leave to the same extent. So would you deem those poor people who actually stayed in an anarchist society, as having agreed to the rules, simply because they stayed and didnt leave?

[DarkAngel_]

As long as you benefit from a government, you have to pay for it... it's only the right thing to do.

(Though its immense expense is not)

[Figleaf]

If I want to form a different social contract with another society which is not defined geographically, (say the Catholic church), the Canadian governemnent will not "release" me from my social contract, if I continue to reside in Canada.

This requirement for residency precludes a free choice of which society to belong to.

1. Canada will not prevent you from freely associating with the church, to the extent it doesn't conflict your requirements under the Canadian social contract. I trust you don't object to your counterparties holding you to the terms of the deal?

2. Part of the Canadian social contract is an assertion of territorial sovereignty, you cannot be outside the social contract and within the borders, by definition (i.e. the definition supplied by the asserted sovereign).

This is the first time you have even mentioned "free western countries". Go back and check.

Okay. Who are we talking about then?

Let's take Canada as an example. Let's say I do not agree with the social contract imposed by Canada. Please tell me how do I conceptually "leave" without physically departing.

I was refering to non-territorial societies with 'conceptually leave'.

QUOTE(Figleaf @ Jan 19 2007, 01:15 PM)

I am saying that because you can leave Canada, by staying, Canadians can assert/assume that you are accepting the social contract as we provide it.

By "leave" I'm going to assume you mean leave Canadian society but not necessarily physically depart.

No, in the case of Canada, I mean physically depart and end reciprocal obligations.

And what I'm saying is that for you to assert acceptance of the social contract, you need more preconditions to be met than just Canada letting you leave.

Okay, you would need somewhere to go in order to make your planned departure work. I am saying that difficulty does not change the fact that Canada is a consensual rather than coercive society. From the point of view of the Canadian social contract, the inherent difficulties attendant on your choice are not the test of whether you are free or not.

Blacks in South Africa were free to leave during the time of apartheid. For the ones that didn't leave (the vast majority), do you conclude that they accepted a social contract that made them subservient to their white masters? I don't. I conclude that a contract was forced upon them in a situation where they had very little choice.

You can't 'force' a contract on someone. Blacks in South Africa opposed, repudiated, and disproved the asserted-but-false social contract of the Aparthied regime.

The choice to buy or not , where there is the lack of alternatives is a choice to die or not die. No one else would consider that a choice, and it woudl seem ludricous that you do.

The choice to live or die is not at all uncommon in our world, or our cultural representations. To call it ludicrous is ...

But anyway, the ethical issue is not whether you have a choice, but whether another party has any obligation to improve your choices.

"Do you agree that when the difficulties in completing an action are onerous enough, you can reasonably call the action practically impossible to achieve?"

This seems to strip any of the relevant philosophical points away and leave an unchallengeable proposition in their place. Okay, I'll play along -- Yes. ... so...?

[DarkAngel_]

taxation is wrong... because damn it! i need that money!!!

morally, taxation is a way for 'people' to be there government- acting with a budget of the people, as it should be.

but some versions of tax are wrong, like having to pay to use the bathroom, or paying just to enter the country or state.

if you can live off the land, in my opinion, without taking ANY money from the country you reside, then you shouldn't have to pay.

[Renegade]

2. Part of the Canadian social contract is an assertion of territorial sovereignty, you cannot be outside the social contract and within the borders, by definition (i.e. the definition supplied by the asserted sovereign).

Exactly my point. I didnt' agree to territorial sovereignty. The government unlaterally asserted territorial sovereignty.

Okay. Who are we talking about then?

I don't know specificly. You used the general word "society". So I speak of societies in general.

I was refering to non-territorial societies with 'conceptually leave'.

Exactly. Non-territorial societies let me freely leave so I can reasonably be asserted that when I am part ot that society I have "accepted" their rules. Territorial societies which do not let me freely conceptually leave without physically leaving cannot make that same resonable assertion.

No, in the case of Canada, I mean physically depart and end reciprocal obligations.

See my response above.

From the point of view of the Canadian social contract, the inherent difficulties attendant on your choice are not the test of whether you are free or not.

I don't judge it solely from a Canadian point of view, I look at it from an objective point of view. From an objective point of view, the existance of barriers, if high enough, preclude me from being free.

Blacks in South Africa were free to leave during the time of apartheid. For the ones that didn't leave (the vast majority), do you conclude that they accepted a social contract that made them subservient to their white masters? I don't. I conclude that a contract was forced upon them in a situation where they had very little choice.

You can't 'force' a contract on someone. Blacks in South Africa opposed, repudiated, and disproved the asserted-but-false social contract of the Aparthied regime.

Apartheid, existed for decades before it was thrown out. So did blacks willingly accept it for 50 years? If the blacks opposed it and repudiate it, how did they do so? If they protested is that sufficient to show that didn't accept the social contract? If I protest is that sufficient to show that I don't accept the Canadian social contrat?

But anyway, the ethical issue is not whether you have a choice, but whether another party has any obligation to improve your choices.

No, its not the issue at all. I couldn't give a damn whether another party improves my choices. What I assert is you can't call it "acceptance" then.

Okay, I'll play along -- Yes. ... so...?

Do you agree then if an action is practically impossible to achieve it is not reasonable to characterize the lack of acthievement of that action as a choice?

[Renegade]

morally, taxation is a way for 'people' to be there government- acting with a budget of the people, as it should be.

Why is that a moral issue and not a pragmatic one?

but some versions of tax are wrong, like having to pay to use the bathroom, or paying just to enter the country or state.

Why? How do you decide what versions of tax are wrong and which are right?

if you can live off the land, in my opinion, without taking ANY money from the country you reside, then you shouldn't have to pay.

most governments would disagree with you. By "live off the land" do you mean not use government provided infrastructure or more than that?

[Figleaf]

2. Part of the Canadian social contract is an assertion of territorial sovereignty, you cannot be outside the social contract and within the borders, by definition (i.e. the definition supplied by the asserted sovereign).

Exactly my point. I didnt' agree to territorial sovereignty. The government unlaterally asserted territorial sovereignty.

No, the people of Canada assert territorial sovereignty through their government. If you don't like it, the people of Canada wish you well somewhere else. No problem.

Okay. Who are we talking about then?

I don't know specificly. You used the general word "society". So I speak of societies in general.

Well, this is another fine mess you've gotten me into!

I was refering to non-territorial societies with 'conceptually leave'.

Exactly. Non-territorial societies let me freely leave so I can reasonably be asserted that when I am part ot that society I have "accepted" their rules.Territorial societies which do not let me freely conceptually leave without physically leaving cannot make that same resonable assertion.

Well, non-territorial societies actually don't all let you leave freely.

But anyway, Territorial societies can't let you leave conceptually but remain physically because the territoriality is a core element of their agreement. I don't see how that is problematic, conceptually.

From the point of view of the Canadian social contract, the inherent difficulties attendant on your choice are not the test of whether you are free or not.

I don't judge it solely from a Canadian point of view, I look at it from an objective point of view.

Puh-lease. We all have that fantasy for a while, but let's just get over it, shall we?

From an objective point of view, the existance of barriers, if high enough, preclude me from being free.

The barriers perhaps, but not Canadian society.

[DarkAngel_]

Why is that a moral issue and not a pragmatic one?

pragmatic? i guess because it is a moral issue to have obligation to those who serve you, and is moral when respect of those whom protect and act by at least some of your word need a basic physical prestige such a money to make intent of the 'one bodied' people known and followed through with.

Why? How do you decide what versions of tax are wrong and which are right?

i don't decide, i just kind of figure out, if i got to pee, and they stop me cause i have no money, and so i pee outside and get arrested for indecent exposure, then its their tax that made it possible and is wrong, even more so if i did everything in my power to gain access to the bathroom facility.

the same goes for travel, i hold no obligation to them in my journey, i choose to walk or drive, so that i could go somewhere of my choosing, if i am broke and they kick me out, would they not hunt me down if i went around? my point stated.

most governments would disagree with you. By "live off the land" do you mean not use government provided infrastructure or more than that?

ya, more then that... basically being your own country-state, and detaching from government and living off your domain, as in hunting, fishing, farming, and other things needed to survive on your own.

just as well, stripping all rights and obligation of citizenship.

people have already done it.

[Figleaf]

Blacks in South Africa were free to leave during the time of apartheid. For the ones that didn't leave (the vast majority), do you conclude that they accepted a social contract that made them subservient to their white masters? I don't. I conclude that a contract was forced upon them in a situation where they had very little choice.

You can't 'force' a contract on someone. Blacks in South Africa opposed, repudiated, and disproved the asserted-but-false social contract of the Aparthied regime.

Apartheid, existed for decades before it was thrown out. So did blacks willingly accept it for 50 years?

If the blacks opposed it and repudiate it, how did they do so?

Did you miss the part there about "opposed, repudiated, and disproved"?

Anyway, there are better sources than me for a comprehensive history of South Africa.

If they protested is that sufficient to show that didn't accept the social contract?

In point of fact, they resisted to the point of doing away with the system. That is sufficient.

If I protest is that sufficient to show that I don't accept the Canadian social contrat?

Effectively, the Canadian social contract recognizes only departure and giving up citizenship as expunging the relationship.

But anyway, the ethical issue is not whether you have a choice, but whether another party has any obligation to improve your choices.

No, its not the issue at all. I couldn't give a damn whether another party improves my choices. What I assert is you can't call it "acceptance" then.

I'm lost then.

Okay, I'll play along -- Yes. ... so...?

Do you agree then if an action is practically impossible to achieve it is not reasonable to characterize the lack of acthievement of that action as a choice?

There are two choices that will lead to such lack of attainment.

On the one hand, one could recognize the nigh impossibility and not make the attempt. On the other hand, one could elect to make the attempt and fail.

[Riverwind]

If you characterize people as "free to leave" in our society, then they are just as "free to leave" in an anarchist society.

You misunderstand my point. I am saying there is no such thing as society that is free of cohersion (economic, social or physical). So the question is not 'do we want a society free of cohersion?'. The question is 'what amount and what kind of cohersion can we live with?'. I believe that our liberal democratic state allows more people to live lives freer of cohersion than any other social model including anarchism. I responded to your post because you acknowledged that people are not free if economics makes it impossible for them to made certain choices.

[DarkAngel_]

I responded to your post because you acknowledged that people are not free if economics makes it impossible for them to made certain choices.

i agree with your last point, dependence on an economy brought to you by a government can be a weakness in that if the infrastructure fails, the society built on it falls apart.

in my experiance, work for food is more rewarding, when not being paid in cash... hunting for food trains your senses, as well as farming increasing lore in homeopathies and alchemy. knoledge and skill are obtained much more naturally, if you learn it through practice for survival.

though as a working system, the government is very powerful in solving and crushing, and often is a good way to structurise almost impossible taskes, like building massive bridges or feats of technological marvel.

[frogs]

If it is correct for the government to steal, then it's OK for the citizen's to steal. If it's OK for the gov to kill, then it's OK for the people to kill. If it's OK for the gov to have auto rifles, then its OK for the people to have them. That's called "equal rights". But, of, course, governments insist on a monopoly on these things, not because they want justice, but because they desire to steal everyone's money, which is easy when they have unequal rights. Adults on the government payroll generally think this is a great idea!

[margrace]

Interesting that the people posting on here talk of the government and the people, they are the same thing your vote is your government.

[frogs]

Interesting that the people posting on here talk of the government and the people, they are the same thing your vote is your government.

Actually in some large countries, your vote elects someone who may (or may not), support your special interest, and then support others' special interests, as well, that you don't want, so that the final cost to everyone by way of economic controls,etc, is so astronomical, that everyone is knowingly hurt by it. The systems are set up so that whoever is elected will fleece everyone. If people were hipper, they wouldn't vote at all, which would support your statement a little wouldn't it!