# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Taxation Constitutional Amendment

## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation*
Since the only legitimate authority that the government can have is delegated to it by the individuals governed, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have; and since no individual has moral right to force his neighbor to disclose his income, property, or sales information, furthermore, since no individual has a right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor,-- he cannot delegate such authority to his government. 

Therefore, all forms of public taxation of private property, including but not limited to income, property, and sales taxes, are unjust, and therefore are expressly forbidden, and are hereby and henceforth abolished. 

To preserve liberty and prosperity of the people, The only sources of revenue allowed to government are these: public property user fees, and voluntary contributions.

Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership. 

Public property user fees must be: 

**a)    agreed upon by the majority of the people,

    b)    administered equally among the users, and 

    c)    * *administered* *without violation of property and natural, unalienable rights of any individual.
** 
If a poor person cannot afford to pay a user fee, he should convince a jury of his peers of that, and be relieved of the fee.

The government shall not raise a user fee above the point where more than 10% of the users are acquitted of it by the jury of their peers.
*

Explanation:

ALL of the society's problems are made possible or made worse by taxation. 

Why? Because it is a wholesale violation of Private Property. Violation of Private Property is the definition of evil. And when you build a state on evil, you infuse evil into everything the state touches, amplifying all the evils of human condition. 

What is taxation? Forceful (coercive) extraction of wealth. It is, by definition, based on aggressive violence, when one taxes the property he does not own. 

*Aggressive violence is the definition of evil.* It is the definition of INJUSTICE. It is ALWAYS wrong. It is rooted in violation of private property. 

Now, Private Property is the foundation of Liberty and Justice. Liberty and Justice DO NOT EXIST without Private Property. 

What is Justice if not the right to use equal force to offset the aggression of another against your property? Thus, Justice is nothing more than Non-violation of Private Property. (Private Property here, of course, is taken in the broadest sense possible. It includes all the things you own, that you do not have to ask anyone permission to use, as long as you do not violate the property of another; and everyone must obtain your permission to use it. Defined this way, your private property includes you, your body, your mind, your ability to think, to speak, to act, to move, the fruits of your labor, etc..) Non-violation is another name for Non-Aggression (see NAP). It is the same thing. 

And what is Liberty if not the right to do with your own property what you desire, as long as you do not violate the property of another? 

Thus both Justice and Liberty are completely meaningless without the concept of private property. Anything that violates Private Property violates both JUSTICE and LIBERTY, and is therefore EVIL, by definition, no matter who practices it.

So public taxation of private property is EVIL because it is violation of Private Property via Aggressive violence. 

It is THEFT by the strictest definition of the term. It is institutionalized INJUSTICE, institutionalized robbery, and institutionalized aggressive violence, which is institutionalized evil, by definition of the term. (EVIL is defined as aggressive violence.)

The loony idea that the rules of morality and justice do not apply to government is the core of our problems. 

*You can only rightfully tax the things you own (in the form of rent, user fee, or such), and nothing else.* Otherwise you would be committing plunder, albeit legalized plunder, which is still IMMORAL. 

The key point here is that government does NOT own you, nor your property, nor the fruits of your labor, therefore it cannot rightly tax you at all, because again, you can only rightly tax (forcefully extract wealth from) the things you own, and nothing else. 

As slavery was a flaw in the original Constitution, so is taxation, which is simply a different face of slavery and plunder. It is a violation of the Law of Justice, and thus is immoral. No wonder that this cancer that was embedded in the Constitution has now developed to the point of destruction of the society itself. This gross INJUSTICE must not be permitted to continue if Liberty, and consequently the society itself, is to survive and prosper. Later in this article I will give another strict proof of immorality of taxation in terms of delegation of authority.

Some people argue that there is a "social contract" under the terms of which you are supposed to pay taxes to the public. That is false, because, by definition, for a contract to exist, there must be an individual, voluntary, and explicit consent to the terms of the contract. No such INDIVIDUAL, VOLUNTARY, and EXPLICIT consent exists for taxation. 

In fact, by definition, taxation, like robbery, is INVOLUNTARY. 

Some say, but you vote, therefore you consent. Not at all. Voting has nothing to do with consenting to taxation. It is not a part of voting procedure. 

Some say, but you live here, therefore by mere act of being here you are consenting. Not true. I granted no such consent, neither anyone I know granted such consent. To ascribe EXPLICIT consent where none is given, and then to proceed to use aggressive violence to collect the tax is an act of usurpation, plunder and injustice, by strict definitions of those terms. 

_And here is a technical, logical proof that government has no moral right to tax in terms of proper authority:_
Since government gets all of its legitimate authority by delegation from the governed, the government has no authority to force anyone to do anything accept what you and I have moral right to force him to do. If you, as individual, have no moral right to force your neighbor to disclose his income, you cannot delegate this authority to your government to force him for you. The same goes for disclosures of sales, or property inspections. If you have no moral right to force your neighbor to disclose his sales information, or force him to reveal his property, or forcibly extract wealth from him, neither does the government; because the only legitimate authority the government has is what you delegated to  it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have!

According to this fundamental principle of liberty (and I call it the Benson Principle, please see it here), all taxes, including income, sales, and property taxes are immoral, for they require an authority the government cannot properly have, because no one could have delegated such authority to it, because no one has such authority. 

So the only legitimate avenues of revenue for the government that remain are public property user fees, and voluntary contributions.

The idea here is, if you use it, you pay for it.

How do you pay for police? First of all, private sector can do justice enforcement and arbitration between parties infinitely better than a government forced monopoly. However if the people choose a public option, they can give the police _non-exclusive_ justice enforcement functions. However, the people have no right to commit theft to pay for it via taxation of private property, (taxation of private property of another is theft). Therefore, if people choose to have public police, it can be paid from public property user fees. But they have no moral right to give the public police justice enforcement monopoly, because no individual has a right to force such a monopoly on his neighbor, and therefore neither does the government, because no one could delegate such authority to it, because no individual has such authority.

911 calls? If you want 911 operator respond to your calls, you better pay the fee to run it, etc. However, if the people prefer a public version of it as well, since they cannot rightly tax private property (only public property), they can finance 911 operators from public road and public sewer user fees, or the like. As long as it is public property, it can be decided by popular vote provided everyone is treated equally, and property of no individual is violated in the process.

What about courts? A government court is a public property. If you use it, you pay for it. And offending party should carry most of the expense. However, public courts have no right to presume monopoly on justice enforcement or arbitration. Privately funded courts in a Free Market are capable of justice enforcement infinitely better than unjust by definition government forced monopoly. 

So public option for courts may exist if people choose, but it has no right to a monopoly on justice enforcement whatsoever, because no one has a right to delegate such monopoly to the government, because no one, individually has such right, and therefore such monopoly would violate Private Property and be blatantly unjust.

What about defense? Free Market can handle defense infinitely better than government forced monopoly as well, and it is the only way to provide it justly. 

In addition, you can have your volunteer citizen militias at State and local levels. If people choose, federal defense can also be paid for by the States from public property user fees and from voluntary contributions. Bottom line, if people do not choose to pay for their defense they deserve to be conquered, and as with any valuable product, Free Market will deliver defense, i.e. justice enforcement most efficiently, and above all without violating the law of Justice, i.e. the law of Private Property. 

At the border, the cost of operating customs can be born by customs user fees, as long as everyone is treated equally and the rights of no one is violated, etc.

As we mentioned before, all of the society's problems are made possible, or made worse by the evil of taxation:

For example, even the greatest legalized plunder of all, i.e. fiat,   unbacked currency is actually made possible via taxation and could not   exist without it. Let me explain: the government forced monopoly that is   the indispensable essence of a fiat, unbacked currency is achieved via   taxation. The government TAXES transactions in gold and silver, thus   discouraging their use as money. Government demands capital gain and   sales taxes on gold used as the medium of exchange in every transaction   done with it. It's like going to the bank to change $5 bill into   quarters and paying a sales tax on the transaction. Thus, TAXATION is   used to destroy Free Competition in Currencies,   which Free Competition if it were present would have ended unbacked   fiat, which cannot exist without a government forced monopoly.   (Government forced monopoly is the opposite of Free Competition and they   cannot exist simultaneously. One must unavoidably destroy the other.)   This was the proof that unbacked fiat is impossible without taxation.


The immorality of taxation can also be shown from the point of view of privacy:

Privacy = Liberty.

Government hates people's privacy because it prevents them from destroying people's liberty.

1% income tax destroys 100% of the principle of self ownership and 100% of the principle of Private Property (which is Liberty itself), because *one can justly tax ONLY the things he owns*. By taxing you the government asserts, albeit falsely, that it OWNS you and ALL of your property. Which is a complete perversion of the truth!

Also, 1% income tax destroys 100% of your privacy, because to calculate that 1% you have to disclose to the government the ENTIRETY of your financial life; this is a complete annihilation of privacy! A sales tax gives the government the "right" to monitor all transactions between people. Property tax gives the government the "right" to inspect your property every year. And since you as individual have no moral right to force your neighbor to disclose any such information, neither has the government, for you cannot delegate an authority you do not have!   

This amendment is way better than what the Founders offered. For they allowed for import and excise taxes, which means that the government can monitor EVERYTHING you do, everything you produce, everything you sell, everything you buy, to see if a certain excise tax condition was met. Besides, if they don't like a behavior or a product or a service they can just uniformly tax it with an excise tax and thus control the people. Since no private individual under jurisdiction of this government has the moral right to do any such thing, the government has no authority to do it either, because again, no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

My amendment fixes all these problems in the original Constitution.

It also has an iron clad check on the amount of the fees: if the politicians will raise a user fee too high, everyone will escape the fee through the "jury" clause of the amendment, and the government will get nothing, because the jury of peers will acquit everyone. Thus, under this amendment for a fee to be paid, the people in general have to believe it is not excessive. That's the beauty of the jury check on the government. Besides, if jury nullification is spelled out like that in black and white in the Constitution itself (in this amendment) it will be that much harder to hide this power from the people again, (which power they already have, but don't yet know it). It's all about persuasion. The more clear, explicit and persuasive the law is the more likely it will be understood and followed by the people in general, to preserve their liberty. (The need amply demonstrated by last 100 years).

Above all, this amendment, brings the Constitution into greater compliance with the eternal Laws of Justice, thus promoting Liberty, and ultimately the survival of the Nation, because no people can long endure without Justice. 

This brief amendment would replace the entire federal tax code, and you would have your freedom!

"Right to Rob You"




Also check out this essay: 
The Correct Principles of Liberty and The Errors of the US Constitution.


=====================================
This amendment is a part of 7 amendments that were designed to bring the Constitution into harmony with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot exist:
*Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)* The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment Honest Money Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM) Nullification - Constitutional Amendment  Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Ok, I tweaked the amendment. Is it better now?

Thanks!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I disagree with this "If a poor person cannot afford to pay a user fee, he should convince a jury of his peers of that, and be relieved of the fee."  This kind of force could be exploited in a myriad of ways.  Either eliminate it, or clarify it.  I also don't believe jury nullification is as reliable as you think.  It is my understanding that jurors are often not informed of the right of nullification, so they don't even think of it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> What about courts? A court is a public property. If you use it, you pay for it. And offending party should carry most of the expense.


So the legal system will only be for those with money?  Well, they do have an advantage already. 

What do you consider "using public property"? Going to the park?  People would stop going. Driving on a street?  Do you have to pay the moment you enter the street or are you every moves on streets tracked and you get a bill every month or so? (I believe you said you were against the government monitoring you so I guess you need a ton of quarters when you drive anywhere). 





> Plus, if you want 911 operator respond to your calls, you better pay the fee to run it, etc.


"Hello- 911. What is your emergency?"
"There has just been a terrible crash! People are bleeding all over the place! Please send help!"  
"Uh, how many victims are there?"
"I don't know- dozens.  A school bus just got hit by a tractor trailer rig!"
"OK- let's call it 30.  That will be $300 for the call- $10 per person.  Do you have a credit card or are you on our autopayment plan?"
"Plan-- what plan-  these people need help!  I don't have anything on me!"
"Sorry sir, this is a public service.  You are required to pay for it in advance before we can send anybody out to your location. "
"Thank you for calling.  Have a nice day. "

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So the legal system will only be for those with money? Well, they do have an advantage already.


Not necessarily. The fees should be very reasonable, established by law, and the offending party should bear most of the expense.




> What do you consider "using public property"? Going to the park? People would stop going.


Exactly, so it is not in politician’s interest to make those fees high, otherwise people will stop going. Secondly, not all public property use should be for pay, the people can decide this by popular vote. 




> Driving on a street? Do you have to pay the moment you enter the street or are you every moves on streets tracked and you get a bill every month or so?


You already pay user fees for driving. That fee is built into your car registration. And no, I don’t want people to be tracked. All these things pertaining to public property can be decided by popular vote. 




> "Hello- 911. What is your emergency?"


Ok. 911 operators can be paid from say road or sewer user fees, and thus avoid the scenario you described. The bottom line is that all this can be figured out by popular vote as long as people’s individual rights are not being violated, and all are treated fairly and equally.

None of these things is actually spelled out in the amendment, so they can be decided in any fair way.  But do you agree with the language of the amendment itself? Do you think it squares with fundamental principles of liberty?

Thank you for you critique.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I disagree with this "If a poor person cannot afford to pay a user fee, he should convince a jury of his peers of that, and be relieved of the fee." This kind of force could be exploited in a myriad of ways. Either eliminate it, or clarify it.


I was concerned about it as well, but thought it nice to have some kind of direct check by the people on the amount of the fee. What would you propose? How would you do it better? Thanks.




> I also don't believe jury nullification is as reliable as you think. It is my understanding that jurors are often not informed of the right of nullification, so they don't even think of it.


Nothing human is 100% reliable, but informed jury check on the government is a must for a truly free society. So we got to educate juries about their true power, the power they already have, even if they don’t yet know it!

Thanks for your critique! Please help me to make this better. Thanks again.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You already pay user fees for driving. That fee is built into your car registration. And no, I dont want people to be tracked. All these things pertaining to public property can be decided by popular vote.


Your registration fee does not cover any construction or maintainance of roads.  So I guess you would have all roads be toll roads then?  You want to go to visit Grandma or go to the store for food- you pay a toll. Going to work- a toll.  Sounds very inconvenient and a detriment to the free movement of people and goods across the country. That would greatly impede commerce and business.  A gasoline tax could help with this but you are against any sort of sales tax. 

You will have a hard time funding even a minimalist government with your proposal as the only means of taxation. 

My brother was stationed in Germany in the US Army for a time.  The town where he lived did not have any sort of local taxation (it was very small anyways) so if a service was needed, the residents were given an assessment for a share of the costs involved.  If a sewer pipe burst or road was damaged and needed to be repaired, you had to come up with your portion of those costs.  Sometimes that meant a couple thousand dollars at once. They needed $6000 for a sewer problem once.   This meant that you had to maintain enough savings to be able to come up with the funds and spending less money on local businesses as a result. (Not sure what they did if you could not come up with the funds).  This required savings reduced the local spending by more than if you had a general assesment paid regularly into a fund since people would not have to come up with all the funds for a particular problem all at once- spreading the costs out over time. So in this example, the "per use" ended up costing the local economy more than having a general taxation administered.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Your registration fee does not cover any construction or maintainance of roads.  So I guess you would have all roads be toll roads then?  You want to go to visit Grandma or go to the store for food- you pay a toll. Going to work- a toll.  Sounds very inconvenient and a detriment to the free movement of people and goods across the country. That would greatly impede commerce and business.  
> ... So in this example, the "per use" ended up costing the local economy more than having a general taxation administered.


There is no question that you can make anything horrible and inconvenient. Much better user fee administration would be requiring say a sticker on your car saying that you've paid the fee, sort of like registration stickers we get now once a year. Or, say if you wish to use highway system you could have a fee paid once a year that entitles you to passage conveniently, etc. I am open to all kinds of suggestions. I am sure that there is a way to do user fees in a convenient non intrusive way, sort of (again) like car registrations if you are using public streets.

The bottom line is that with user fees you are not violating any fundamental principles of liberty (if you do it right), as oppose to say income, sales, or property taxes, which are fundamentally immoral. And that's the whole point.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Actually sales taxes can be a good form of a user's fee. Those who use the product pay the costs.  Take our example of cars on the highway.  If you tax the gasoline and use that to pay for your roads. that is a tax which hits only the users of the roads (you don't usually buy gasoline for other purposes- maybe a little bit for your lawn mower).  Sure you can lower your taxes by buying a more efficient automobile but that is a positive contribution as well- higher mileage cars tend to weigh less and thus cause less wear and tear on the road. If you just have an annual fee, then a person who uses their car on the road a lot pays the same amount as somebody who hardly drives at all.  Is that morally equitable or fair?  Unless you again go back to somehow monitoring how many miles people drive in a year and assess their annual fee accordingly.  With the gas tax you don't have to know how many miles each car is driven.  The tax is simple, fair, and easy to collect. 

For utilities like water and gas or electricity your useage is monitored and you are charged based on what you use. Some big users even have a higher rate than a low user. 

I understand the principle of what you are trying to do- and there are many applications it can work on.  It just gets complicated in the application side in some of them. Common use things like National Defense become hard to try to decide what a "user's fee" would be.  Should everybody be charged the exact same amount for their share of the national defense reguardless of income or should it be based on "ability to pay"?  Everybody benefits equally from defense. But should it cost five percent of my income while somebody else pays less than one percent of their income for the same benefit? How do you construct a "user fee" for that? Have a "head tax" or a per-person tax on everybody?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Actually sales taxes can be a good form of a user's fee. Those who use the product pay the costs.


*Public* property user fees do not violate fundamental principle of liberty. 
Private property user fees, however, are the definition of tyranny! Do you have the moral right to monitor your neighbor’s sales? The whole point with private property is that the owner can do WHATERVER he wants with it without asking your permission to do it and without you monitoring what he does with his property, as long as he is not violating the property of others! This is the key difference between public and private property! And it is the key of freedom.




> If you just have an annual fee, then a person who uses their car on the road a lot pays the same amount as somebody who hardly drives at all.  Is that morally equitable or fair? Unless you again go back to somehow monitoring how many miles people drive in a year and assess their annual fee accordingly. With the gas tax you don't have to know how many miles each car is driven.


Good point. To make it perfectly fair you would have to monitor the mileage. But the loss of privacy may make it undesirable. Maybe a balance could be struck by some middle road approach where only say heavy trucks would have to be tracked per mile with some electronic counter, but personal small vehicles would only have a flat subscription fee? Or you can find any combination in between. 




> With the gas tax you don't have to know how many miles each car is driven. The tax is simple, fair, and easy to collect.


With gasoline tax you in a way disclose your mileage too, but you do not have the right to monitor your neighbor’s sales of gasoline, therefore neither does the government!

The fundamental principle of liberty must be honored and followed if liberty is to survive.




> For utilities like water and gas or electricity your useage is monitored and you are charged based on what you use. Some big users even have a higher rate than a low user.


The only way the government can be justified in charging say for water or natural gas if those are public property. But electricity, if produced privately, could not be taxed by the government. Private property again! You have to honor the principle of liberty or you will lose it! Private property is the very foundation of liberty.




> I understand the principle of what you are trying to do- and there are many applications it can work on. It just gets complicated in the application side in some of them.


True. But this is the price worth paying to preserve Liberty and Freedom!




> Common use things like National Defense become hard to try to decide what a "user's fee" would be. Should everybody be charged the exact same amount for their share of the national defense reguardless of income or should it be based on "ability to pay"?


It will have to be exactly the same, because you have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor to disclose his income, therefore neither does the government, since the only authority it properly can have is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have!

I thought national defense could be paid as a percentage of public property user fees and from voluntary contributions. So those who use public property more will end up paying more for national defense as the result. 

In the time of WWII many Americans voluntarily sent money to the government for war effort. If people are unwilling to voluntarily pay for their defense they deserve to be conquered!




> Have a "head tax" or a per-person tax on everybody?


I was trying to avoid this because of how intrusive that would be.
Do you have the moral right to come to your neighbors house and force him at gun point to pay for national defense? I don’t think so.

Therefore I thought public property user fees and voluntary contributions was a better way to go, because you preserve Liberty.

Thanks.

----------


## Liberty Ghost

I think that your ideas about taxation are right on target! Coupled with the repeal of the amendment allowing direct taxation, of course.

People cry and moan about the fact that with only these kinds of taxes, we won't be able to afford the vast bureaucracies that we support today, but that is entirely the point.  This is vastly superior to the stupid "Fair Tax" that many conservative groups are pushing today.  Their "Fair Tax" still leans on most of the injustices which we inherit from direct taxation and opens the whole regressive/progressive tax rate complaint for debate, which can only lead to trouble.  Well done!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I think that your ideas about taxation are right on target! Coupled with the repeal of the amendment allowing direct taxation, of course.
> 
> People cry and moan about the fact that with only these kinds of taxes, we won't be able to afford the vast bureaucracies that we support today, but that is entirely the point.  This is vastly superior to the stupid "Fair Tax" that many conservative groups are pushing today.  Their "Fair Tax" still leans on most of the injustices which we inherit from direct taxation and opens the whole regressive/progressive tax rate complaint for debate, which can only lead to trouble.  Well done!


Amen, brother! Excellent points!

Thank you!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Ok. I made it even stronger. Please read the new version at the top of the thread.

Thank you!

----------


## Liberty Ghost

I'm concerned that voluntary contributions will be abused over time.  According to the IRS and testimony before Congress, our current tax system is a voluntary one.  We "voluntarily" choose to sign our tax returns, which is a voluntary suspension of our 5th amendment rights.  Of course, failure to file has also been turned into a criminal offense, so the concept of "voluntary" has definitely been muddied.  With such bad precedent, similar language in a new amendment will be almost meaningless from the start.  I'm not sure it is necessary to explicitly state that government may ask for donations.  I think that if people want to give to government, they will, but I don't know that it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution.

----------


## Danke

> I'm concerned that voluntary contributions will be abused over time.  According to the IRS and testimony before Congress, our current tax system is a voluntary one.  We "voluntarily" choose to sign our tax returns, which is a voluntary suspension of our 5th amendment rights.  Of course, failure to file has also been turned into a criminal offense, so the concept of "voluntary" has definitely been muddied.  With such bad precedent, similar language in a new amendment will be almost meaningless from the start.  I'm not sure it is necessary to explicitly state that government may ask for donations.  I think that if people want to give to government, they will, but I don't know that it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution.


It is voluntary in the sense you voluntarily engage in the activity that creates a tax liability.

----------


## Liberty Ghost

I also think that there is a place for a direct tax on services delivered by the government.  I'm not sure if that's included in the idea of public property user fees as you have it stated now. I think there are some legitimate services that government can provide, although I don't think I'm too excited about either the Post Office or the Patent Office as being ones that should be expressly authorized.  I think that individual states should have the flexibility to set up government services and set a direct tax on them.  If the people reject the tax, they are de-funding the service as well and it can either be abolished or sold to private enterprise.

----------


## Liberty Ghost

I think that a provision that limits the threshold of a user fee to some arbitrary percentage is unworkable and probably unnecessary.  If 11% of cases in a period are decided for the defendant, does this nullify the tax?  What is the period - in the first year after passage, over a 5 year lifespan, or 10 years?  If later the percentage rises, does that mean that earlier cases should be reexamined?  Without guidance here, I think you are forcing the courts to legislate.  I think it would need some careful thought.

If there were no provision, except the provision that the burden to convince a jury is borne by the taxpayer, an excessive rate of taxpayer aquittal will effectively gut the tax anyway, so there would be no need to have a provision that re-states the obvious.  If a sufficient number of cases were decided which excepted taxpayers from the tax, it should rise to Congress or the Legislature to repeal or modify the tax and bring it in line with the ability of citizens to pay, regardless of whether the threshold is 5% or 25%.

----------


## Liberty Ghost

> It is voluntary in the sense you voluntarily engage in the activity that creates a tax liability.


To the extent that having a gun to your head makes it "voluntary", I agree.  I just don't think that is what the Founders intended.  

But it begs the larger question, what is it about my "activity" that makes it worthy of taxation?  If I use your property, I should expect to pay you for that use.  In the case of using public property, I should expect to reimburse the direct costs (with no expectation of profit) to the government.  But simply engaging in a voluntary activity, any activity, why should this be taxed?  How I fill my time on this Earth is surely my own affair and not the government's.  Why does government need the right to interfere with how I lead my life, as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others or damage others property?

----------


## Liberty Ghost

In connection with taxation, the question arises; Can the state force an individual to accept services which he is not interested in. If so, can the state tax him to pay for that service?

The Collectivist would say that the state operates in the interest of the "greater good" and that the state has a compelling interest in being able to force both the acceptance of services and payment for the same, whether wanted or not.

As someone interested in individual freedom and liberty, I reject this idea.   If an individual cannot force his neighbor to accept a service which he does not want, then he cannot transfer that non-existent right to government, thus government cannot force someone to accept or pay for a service which he does not want. That is tyranny, the opposite of freedom. 

Even if, by custom, we have come to see certain jobs as necessary for a community, such as law enforcement or a fire department, those services should only be available to those who subscribe.  Those who choose not to subscribe may pay a higher rate for the same service if purchased on a needs only basis (after the robbery or after the fire has started).  

Most intrusions on liberty have happened because well meaning individuals want to force others to enjoy the same comfort and security to which they aspire, but this only leads to loss of freedom for all.  We should be content to rule our own lives and let others rule theirs.

----------


## Danke

> To the extent that having a gun to your head makes it "voluntary", I agree.  I just don't think that is what the Founders intended.


Yes, many will argue that there is no justice, or working justice system.  So don't even bother, just pay what is demanded.





> But it begs the larger question, what is it about my "activity" that makes it worthy of taxation?  If I use your property, I should expect to pay you for that use.  In the case of using public property, I should expect to reimburse the direct costs (with no expectation of profit) to the government.  But simply engaging in a voluntary activity, any activity, why should this be taxed?  How I fill my time on this Earth is surely my own affair and not the government's.  Why does government need the right to interfere with how I lead my life, as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others or damage others property?


As far as the Income Tax, they can only tax Federally connected activities and some State activities by agreements between the Federal and State governments.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> It is voluntary in the sense you voluntarily engage in the activity that creates a tax liability.


You voluntary engage in breathing. Right? It is just as voluntary as you providing your livelihood. 

Neither of these ought to be taxed!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I'm concerned that voluntary contributions will be abused over time. According to the IRS and testimony before Congress, our current tax system is a voluntary one. We "voluntarily" choose to sign our tax returns, which is a voluntary suspension of our 5th amendment rights. Of course, failure to file has also been turned into a criminal offense, so the concept of "voluntary" has definitely been muddied. With such bad precedent, similar language in a new amendment will be almost meaningless from the start. I'm not sure it is necessary to explicitly state that government may ask for donations. I think that if people want to give to government, they will, but I don't know that it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution.


Good point. The reason I am stating voluntary contributions is to limit the government. 
The amendment states: *“The only sources of revenue allowed to government are these: public property user fees, and voluntary contributions.”* This prevents the government from inventing a revenue source outside of the two.

As for the meaning of the word “voluntary,” under the Nullification Amendment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252475) the only important interpretation will be the people’s interpretation.




> I also think that there is a place for a direct tax on services delivered by the government.


I would disagree. As you have no moral right to force your neighbor to pay for those services, you cannot delegate such authority to your government; because the only authority the government has is what you, as individual, delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.



> I'm not sure if that's included in the idea of public property user fees as you have it stated now.


User fee means you can avoid paying it by avoiding using it.



> I think there are some legitimate services that government can provide,


Agreed. But you cannot be rightfully FORCED to use those services, neither to pay for them if you do not use them.



> although I don't think I'm too excited about either the Post Office or the Patent Office as being ones that should be expressly authorized.


I agree with you completely on this one!



> I think that individual states should have the flexibility to set up government services and set a direct tax on them.


Yes, the states should have the flexibility to set up government services. But NO they have no moral right to FORCE people to use them, nor to pay for those services if they choose not to use them.



> If the people reject the tax, they are de-funding the service as well and it can either be abolished or sold to private enterprise.


You cannot simply reject the tax, because tax is FORCE. The only way you reject it is by defeating the force. That’s why I say there should be no tax at all; only public property user fees and voluntary contributions.

(I’ll answer the rest later. Thanks.)

----------


## Danke

> You voluntary engage in breathing. Right? It is just as voluntary as you providing your livelihood. 
> 
> Neither of these ought to be taxed!

----------


## Liberty Ghost

You misunderstand me. I don't disagree with respect to what you are saying.  What I mean by a direct tax on government services is that if the government provides a service it can directly tax those who use it, in other words a user fee, but I'm trying to draw the distinction that it is not limited to a fee on government property like parks, but could be applied from a government provided service.  

As to what is a legitimate government service, it gets murkier.  I don't have an objection to a Postal Service on Constitutional grounds, just that I think that it might be more efficiently run by private enterprise.  

The same with the Patent Office.  There are aspects of the Patent Office that I think government may be the right place for.  The filing and storage of the actual patents might best be left to government as a "neutral player" similar to the recording of a title for Real Estate, but with the research handled by private enterprise.  Until a better private model emerges, I think it is probably okay to be handled by government.   The various private standards bodies provide hope for a workable system, although even there, the tendency is for the standards bodies to act in a cartel-like fashion to limit competition.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

O I see. Well a government court is public property. If you use it, you pay for it. And offending party should pay most of it.

As for defense, that's a service. The government itself is a public property, and if you use its services you should pay for it a user fee. But as we both agree, no one can be forced to use government service, neither to pay for the service they don't use. (Unless, of course you are the offender, then you pay for most of court expenses as a punishment).

As for patents,  I believe they cause great harm to society, slowing down its progress. Besides, under Benson Principle, (see the top of the thread) patents and copyrights are unenforceable, as such enforcement would violate fundamental rights of individual.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Foundation of Liberty you are trying to skirt some mythical quasi-public/private endeavor, which fails fundamentally. You can call it a fee all you want, but if it is public property, who gets to make the rules? Are people elected? Who pays for the elections? Do those elected get paid? What sorts of other powers are delegated? You are trying to fuse voluntaryism with Statism and that is big time fail. You can't have both. There are only two forms of governance -- wholly private and voluntary (Voluntaryism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism) or through taxation (e.g. Statism -- theft). One violates anothers liberties, one doesn't.

You are so close, so very close! Head on over to mises.org to get some better ammunition

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Foundation of Liberty you are trying to skirt some mythical quasi-public/private endeavor, which fails fundamentally. You can call it a fee all you want, but if it is public property, who gets to make the rules? Are people elected? Who pays for the elections? Do those elected get paid? What sorts of other powers are delegated? You are trying to fuse voluntaryism with Statism and that is big time fail. You can't have both. There are only two forms of governance -- wholly private and voluntary (Voluntaryism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism) or through taxation (e.g. Statism -- theft). One violates anothers liberties, one doesn't.
> 
> You are so close, so very close! Head on over to mises.org to get some better ammunition


Does not public property exist? I simply acknowledge the existence of things, like public roads, that everyone has equal claim on.

Therefore, if such things exist, they should be governed by the voice of the people, as long as everyone is treated equally, and the natural, unalienable rights of the individual are honored.

----------


## DamianTV

Kind of fail, needs a rethink.

I still think our founding fathers had it right with the idea of Direct Apportionment, IE Indirect Unapportioned Tax is ok (sales tax, not Income, that is Direct Unapportioned and totally unconstitutional) but thats not really the point here.  Youre right, they are tax and spend $#@!ing crazy.  But lets get back on topic.

Public Property.  That means, the property is belonging to the public, not the government, and we should be paid by the government for use of our property.  We seem to commonly misinterpret Public Property as being owned by the Government, and from the perspective that we are the same group, sure, but if we view ourselves as separate entities, us, and them, the people, and the government, separate, then we can conclude that the ownership of the Public is owned by ALL people, not an entity, like a corporation, business or government.  They take, we give, they take more, we run out for paying for things which are already rightfully ours.

Of course, at the same time, I think I'd be all for an Amendment that said the next politician that tries to vote themselves a raise needs to get castrated with a rusty aircraft intake manifold.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I think that a provision that limits the threshold of a user fee to some arbitrary percentage is unworkable and probably unnecessary. If 11% of cases in a period are decided for the defendant, does this nullify the tax? What is the period - in the first year after passage, over a 5 year lifespan, or 10 years? If later the percentage rises, does that mean that earlier cases should be reexamined? Without guidance here, I think you are forcing the courts to legislate. I think it would need some careful thought.


The jury check on the amount of the fee is an important one.
People that are subject to the fee are the total number of people who are using the public property in question. If at any time 10% of that number for any given period are acquitted of the user fee by the jury of their peers, the fee must be decreased. The details of implementation are up to the courts.




> If there were no provision, except the provision that the burden to convince a jury is borne by the taxpayer, an excessive rate of taxpayer aquittal will effectively gut the tax anyway, so there would be no need to have a provision that re-states the obvious.


To gut the tax almost 100% of the people need to be acquitted. That is a lot of hassle. It is much faster to acquit 10%.



> If a sufficient number of cases were decided which excepted taxpayers from the tax, it should rise to Congress or the Legislature to repeal or modify the tax and bring it in line with the ability of citizens to pay, regardless of whether the threshold is 5% or 25%.


What is sufficient number of cases? I say its 10%.



> In connection with taxation, the question arises; Can the state force an individual to accept services which he is not interested in. If so, can the state tax him to pay for that service?


I say emphatically No, and No!



> The Collectivist would say that the state operates in the interest of the "greater good" and that the state has a compelling interest in being able to force both the acceptance of services and payment for the same, whether wanted or not.


I agree with you that the collectivist are wrong, because collective is NOTHING but a collection of individuals; therefore the only thing that is good for the collective is the wellbeing of the individual. 

If you violate the rights of and destroy the individual you are destroying the collective, only one person at a time.



> Even if, by custom, we have come to see certain jobs as necessary for a community, such as law enforcement or a fire department, those services should only be available to those who subscribe. Those who choose not to subscribe may pay a higher rate for the same service if purchased on a needs only basis (after the robbery or after the fire has started).


Brilliant.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

I think I finally got it right. Changed the last paragraph of the amendment. (Please see at the top of the thread).

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

OK, I added a poll at the top of this thread. Please vote!

Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Ron Paul on the Colbert Report - April 25, 2011 - Talks about Sound Money!  

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...-2011/ron-paul

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The Philosophy of Liberty and Bastiat's concept of Legal Plunder

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Added a line:

"Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership."

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Ron Paul: Constitutional Amendment Needed to Limit Taxes and Spending

http://www.dailypaul.com/171327/ron-...s-and-spending

Yea, baby! I have just that!

*Taxation Constitutional Amendment*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...onal-Amendment

----------


## Microsecessionist

Here's the reduced taxation amendment I favor:
Sec. 1:  The 16th Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed
Sec. 2:  The Federal government's taxation powers shall be limited exclusively to collecting gold from the states based upon their population and to collecting tariffs, but no tariffs shall be used to subsidizize nor to protect any branch of industry.

----------


## Kalashnikov Josh

Repeal the 16th Amendment,the "progressive income tax".

Replace it with a one-time flat tax of 3-5%.

EVERYTHING about the so-called "progressive" era was enacted by socialists who liked the ideas of population control and Eugenics.

EVERYTHING "progressive" must go.

----------


## DamianTV

How about we replace Income Tax with NOTHING and quit spending peoples money that doesnt even exist?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> How about we replace Income Tax with NOTHING and quit spending peoples money that doesnt even exist?


Thank you Damian! Exactly right! That's what my amendment does!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

An Open Message to the 99% (Occupy Wall Street)





All taxation is immoral. Plus:
Fiat, i.e. legalized counterfeiting, i.e.  creating "money" (purchasing power) out of thin air IS the problem. It can only exist under a government forced monopoly, and dies under Free Competition in Currencies, which is demanded by true Freedom, Liberty, and the Benson Principle.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*North Dakota initiative to abolish all property tax is revolutionary. It will give citizens more control over government spending and, hopefully, will become a model for other states.Activist Post 2011 Nov 29(Cached)*

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Steven Douglas

This. Is. HUGE. +rep and thanks for posting this!

Defeated by the legislature (natch), but put up as a voter referendum. 

The fact that there could be just ONE state in the union where you could actually own a home, rather than RENT an otherwise fully paid for piece of property from whatever local jurisdiction's pointy heads decided it needed "do lots of neat stuff" is beyond enormous.  I would not have considered owning property in North Dakota of all places, but now it has my eye. 

Cannot wait until June 2012, stuff like this gives me hope that we are not beyond hope.


Here is a GREAT discussion on a local ND program about this issue.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Brilliant! As you said it, even 1% property tax, concedes 100% of the principle of Liberty. It's like that joke: "We already established what you are, we are now arguing about price!" Or it's like being "a little bit pregnant." 

So, what do you think of my amendment?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Abolish the Income Tax!!!
Let Freedom and Prosperity Ring!

*Ron Paul's 0% Income Tax = Massive Insourcing of Jobs into America*

----------


## jcannon98188

I agree that income taxation should be done away with entirely. However, I do not agree that sales taxes should be done away with. A sales tax is essentially a "use" tax. The goods were transported over the governments roads, or the governments harbors. Roads and harbors justly and rightly belong to the government, and they should be able to tax you for their use. Since it would be borderline foolishness to charge people for using the roads directly, they can use a sales tax on the product itself to pay for it. 




> But can't a person own their own PRIVATE road?


Why yes they could. And if a person owns their own roadways connecting from the source of the product, to the destination, then any products moved through there could be sales tax exempt (but still subject to any fees that are applied to the roadways) this could be done by a barcode (non indentifying, for privacy, but something to mark that it never used government roads) or a sticker or something. Some taxation is still required in order to have a functioning government. Yes, I understand that most government should be done away with. But somebody still has to maintain the roadways, provide the first responders, and provide an active standing military. The government can not secure our liberties if it is broke.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I agree that income taxation should be done away with entirely. However, I do not agree that sales taxes should be done away with. A sales tax is essentially a "use" tax. The goods were transported over the governments roads, or the governments harbors.


That logic is flawed. By that same flawed logic I can say that you, and everything you have, are government's property, because you consume food and products that are transported over some government road or through some government harbor, so it's a "use" tax, you see. This logic is flawed because you cannot rightly administer this "use" tax by violating my property and my unalienable rights! You cannot administer a user fee by usurping power you do not rightly have. Ask yourself, does any individual have a right to FORCE me to disclose my sales information? No. Does any one other than me have claim of ownership over my property I am selling? No. Therefore, under the Benson Principle, a group of any size has no claim of ownership over the stuff I am selling, and has no right to force me to disclose my sales information, because no one can delegate such authority to the group, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have. This is why sales tax is just as immoral as income tax, because it presumes an authority that no representative government can ever have, because no individual can delegate such authority to it.




> Roads and harbors justly and rightly belong to the government,


Not in general, but sometimes, IF and only if, those roads and harbors are PUBLIC property. 




> and they should be able to tax you for their use.


If they are public property, then yes. But they must do it without violating my property or my rights in any way. And they may charge me for their use ONLY if I individually choose to use them.




> Since it would be borderline foolishness to charge people for using the roads directly,


Really? I don't think so. Can you not have a toll booth of some kind say to enter a highway? You can make it as high-tech as you want so you don't even have to stop.




> they can use a sales tax on the product itself to pay for it.


No. You cannot rightly administer a user fee by violating my property. Therefore a paid subscription of some kind could be used in order to use public roads, and thus pay for them.




> But can't a person own their own PRIVATE road?                      Why yes they could. And if a person owns their own roadways connecting from the source of the product, to the destination, then any products moved through there could be sales tax exempt (but still subject to any fees that are applied to the roadways)


Again, you cannot administer a user fee in a way to violate my rights and property. For me to use a road, I don't have to reveal everything I sell, or everything I own; I just need to pay for the use. That's all. You cannot administer a public property user fee in a way to violate my rights and property. 




> this could be done by a barcode (non indentifying, for privacy, but something to mark that it never used government roads) or a sticker or something.


Rather you could have a non-identifying bar code to prove you paid for the use of the highway, etc.




> Some taxation is still required in order to have a functioning government. Yes, I understand that most government should be done away with. But  somebody still has to maintain the roadways, provide the first  responders, and provide an active standing military.


Correctly administered user fees and voluntary contributions are the only things that do not violate principles of liberty.




> The government can not secure our liberties if it is broke.


The first responsibility to secure your liberty is yours. And you can hire government, or anyone else to help you do it. But definitely, government does NOT and MUST NOT hold a monopoly on defending your liberty! Please read State or Private-Law Society.

----------


## jcannon98188

> Rather you could have a non-identifying bar code to prove you paid for the use of the highway, etc.


Exactly, that is pretty much the same concept.




> The first responsibility to secure your liberty is yours. And you can hire government, or anyone else to help you do it.


The whole purpose of government is to secure and protect our liberties. Yes, you can secure and protect them too, but that is their primary purpose. Without government, it would become a lot easier for me to violate your rights and your freedom. Without a government, I could shoot you, take your stuff and no one would be there to stop me. Ideally, yes there should be no taxes and in a perfect utopia that would work. But realisticly it would never work

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> The whole purpose of government is to secure and protect our liberties. Yes, you can secure and protect them too, but that is their primary purpose. Without government, it would become a lot easier for me to violate your rights and your freedom. Without a government, I could shoot you, take your stuff and no one would be there to stop me.


It is true that the only valid purpose of government is to defend liberty. But government MUST NOT hold monopoly on it, otherwise it will do a very poor job of it, as any monopoly usually does. Free Market takes care of it much better. Please read State or Private-Law Society.                         




> Ideally, yes there should be no taxes and in a perfect utopia that would work. But realisticly it would never work


You are wrong, or course. Taxation will never work, as demonstrated by centuries of usurpation, bloodshed and economic disaster. Only Freedom ACTUALLY works, or ever CAN work. You either stand on Correct Principle, or forever slide into darkness. The choice is yours!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The Myth of National Defense

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

TheTinyDot 



Tiny Dot Explained

----------


## bolil

Also on private roads, a toll might be unnecessary.  The better the road/highway the more traffic it will attract (until it reaches a point of diminishing returns eg traffic jams) the more traffic on the road the more advertisers would be willing to pay for billboards and etc.  I dig what FOL is throwing down about ports.  There is no reason the gov should not own/run ports, the issue is that they mandate everyone use those ports and then charge import taxes.  Really is coercive.  If you don't go to their port your smuggling and can probably expect a visit by the coast guard.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

"Right to Rob You"

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

North Dakota Votes for Measure to Dump Confiscatory Property Taxes


Yeah!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Everyone a Millionaire


Imagine you ditched your car payment and instead invested that money?
Imagine you took the money that the government takes from your paycheck to invest into social security and used it instead to privately invest for retirement?
'Everyone a Millionaire' explains the results.




http://youtu.be/MN3n3MnYTbg

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Penn Jillette on Government Social Welfare

*Lew Rockwell Blog*
Sept 3, 2012
Libertarian Penn Jillette expresses his contempt for government social welfare in this very clear and concise statement:

“It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.”

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

I added these three paragraphs to the explanation section of the amendment (in the top post).




> ALL of the society's problems can be traced to, and are made worse or made possible by, taxation. All taxation is THEFT by strict definition of the term. Thus taxation is institutionalize robbery, and institutionalized violence and aggression. The loony idea that the rules of morality and justice do not apply to government is the core of our problems. *You can only rightfully tax the things you own, and nothing else.* Otherwise you would be committing plunder, albeit legalized plunder, which is still IMMORAL. The key point here is that government does NOT own you, nor your property, nor the fruits of your labor. As slavery was a flaw in the original Constitution, so is taxation, which is simply a different face of slavery and plunder. It is a violation of the Law of Justice, and thus is immoral. No wonder that this cancer that was embedded in the Constitution has now developed to the point of destruction of the society itself. This gross INJUSTICE must not be permitted to continue if Liberty, and consequently the society itself, is to survive and prosper. 
> 
> Interestingly, even the greatest legalized plunder of all, i.e. fiat, unbacked currency is actually made possible via taxation and could not exist without it. Let me explain: the government forced monopoly that is the indispensable essence of a fiat, unbacked currency is achieved via taxation. The government TAXES transactions in gold and silver, thus discouraging their use as money. Government demands capital gain and sales taxes on gold used as the medium of exchange in every transaction done with it. It's like going to the bank to change $5 bill into quarters and paying a sales tax on the transaction. Thus TAXATION is used to destroy Free Competition in Currencies, which Free Competition if it were present would have ended unbacked fiat, which cannot exist without a government forced monopoly. (Monopoly is the opposite of Free Competition and they cannot exist simultaneously. One must unavoidably destroy the other.) This was the proof that unbacked fiat is impossible without taxation. 
> 
> ...
> 
> 1% income tax destroys 100% of the principle of self ownership and 100% of the principle of Private Property (which is Liberty itself), because *one can justly tax ONLY the things he owns*. By taxing you the government asserts, albeit falsely, that it OWNS you and ALL of your property. Which is a complete perversion of the truth!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Winning Arguments
_August 17, 2012
By eric_

The speech Morpheus gave to Neo in the original _Matrix_ was elegant – and eloquent. But we’re not in a movie – and most of us are not masters of verbal ju-jitsu any more than we are masters of actual ju-jitsu. So, how do we – we being those of us who believe in non-aggression, voluntarism and thus, human liberty – make our case to people who don’t think in such terms?



The other day I had a chat with a neighbor friend. He posed a rhetorical question, “You do believe _some_ taxes are necessary, right?” Rather than debate the merits of this or that tax, this or that function funded by taxes – I merely replied that as a non-violent person I am opposed to the use of violence, for _any_reason except in self-defense. I therefore oppose, I told him, the violent taking of other people’s property for _any purpose whatsoever_. That while I might prefer this or that outcome, I would rather people dealt with one another on the basis of persuasion and mutual free consent – and not at gunpoint.

This approach usually at least results in a momentary pause. It may even get your opponent _thinking_.
Most people – including most of _us_ – grew up with authoritarianism. It envelopes us, from womb to tomb. And so, we grow up accepting, implicitly, the moral schism that says violence is ok when it is done_officially_.
Or by a group, having so voted.

No. It goes much deeper than that. Because the violence is never – or rarely – spoken of openly. No politician running for office ever says, *“I will threaten your neighbors with violence to provide money that I will use to provide schools for your children at their expense – and if they refuse, I’ll have them caged – even killed.”*

Instead, the politician talks blandly about his “support for public education.” The lethal violence he is advocating remains in the background. He is thus able – of all things! – to posture as a “concerned” and “public-spirited” citizen, who “cares about the childrens’ future.”

Never mind the _present_ of his victims.

People talk about the “need” for this or that – never mentioning or even considering that what they propose entails threatening people who have done them no harm and who owe them nothing with murderous violence if they _disagree_ – and _decline_.

And so on.

The violence of our society is so pervasive, we swim in it as naturally – as obliviously – as fish in water.  We – most of us – literally cannot even see it. We merely accept it as the natural order of things  – and go about our lives accordingly. We vote – _casually_ – to put our neighbors into cages – unless they Submit and Obey. To send armed men to their doorstep. To control and micromanage them, with the ever-present threat of the fist, the baton, the Tazer, even the gun always in the background. To deprive them of property – even life.



And they, in turn, to us.

It is called by other things, of course. But this does not change the essential nature of the thing. The violence is there, just sublimated – and legitimated. Organized. Officialized. Euphemized. And so, accepted. Unquestioned. Acquiesced to.

But it is violence just the same.

Only, worse – because euphemized violence renders inert the moral sense. Those in its thrall lose the ability to separate right from wrong in _principle_. They are reduced to relativism – and utilitarianism. To “need” and ” want” rather than _right_ – vs. _wrong_.

You will never win an argument over taxes on real estate to fund the local government socialization/indoctrination center by complaining about “waste” in the budget, or that homeowners can’t afford another rate hike this year. But you can make a devastating moral objection to the notion that anyone has the right to threaten others with violence in order to compel them to provide funds for such an endeavor. It is not about being “against public education.” It is about being against the use of threats and violence as the basis of human interaction. It is about getting people to see that the ultimate kindness – the highest form of compassion one human being can extend to another – is to agree not to engage him with violence, but rather, persuasion. If people cannot agree, then let them disagree peaceably – and go their separate ways.



Violence  – except in defense against violence – must come to be regarded as the essential sinful act. The single worst thing one human being can do to another. Those who believe – and act – otherwise must come to be viewed as pariahs. Sick. _Evil_.

Social suasion will do the rest.

People _can_ live together in peace, without chewing each other to pieces, without reciprocal parasitism, enforced at bayonet-point. The world – our existence – does not have to be this way. It only requires getting enough of them to_see_ – and to _feel_ – the water all around them, the sea of violence in which they swim.
It is time we crawled out onto the shore and took a deep breath of fresh air.
_
Throw it in the Woods?_
*
Related posts:‘Lil Stinker Won… But Government is WinningBut Then We’d Have Anarchy!Good PeopleRead more:* http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/08/1...ing-arguments/

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Changed the wording of the top post.

----------


## W_BRANDON

This would be asking for the government to acquiesce in its own diminution, which would take an act nothing short of revolutionary to accomplish. 1913 was a really bad year. God, help up all!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> This would be asking for the government to acquiesce in its own diminution, which would take an act nothing short of revolutionary to accomplish. 1913 was a really bad year. God, help up all!


Good point. But as we educate our neighbor, and start the "brush fires of liberty in the minds of our fellow countrymen" the things will change. Stronger than a mighty army is the IDEA whose time has come. 

All we are advocating is JUSTICE, Liberty, and Peace. Who would be against that and be justified? No one!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

With regards to Public property, I added this:
"a) agreed upon by the majority of the people"

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*                Taxation Is Robbery*

*by                Frank Chodorov*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Abolish                              the Corporate Income Tax*
But ignore Pat Buchanan's advice on tariffs.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Americas Deep Political Crisis and Private Property


                                                                                                          By Michael S. Rozeff                                                        on July 9, 2013
 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/m...itical-crisis/
...

The crisis is unusual in being slow and pervasive, rather than being   quick and limited in scope. This is occurring because the heart and soul   of the crisis has been institutionalized and legalized.

 That heart is the income tax, passed in 1913 by constitutional   amendment (although the legal ratification has been disputed). Human   wealth embodied in the human being is what generates income, in   conjunction with non-human capital. One has property not only in objects   but in ones own person and body. The taxation of this by society,   government or state is a taking of ones property. It is a form of   slavery, a degree of slavery, in which the state co-owns the person and   body of those subject to the income tax. Regulations that determine how   one may generate or use wealth amount to roundabout forms of taxes.

 These taxes and regulations could only be enacted as laws under the   notion that older ideas of individual property ownership, even in ones   person, were inadequate or unjust, and that they needed to be modified   or replaced by the newer ideas of property being a social matter. It is   extraordinarily ironic that after a bloody war that ended slavery, a   short 48 years later, the country would end up with an income tax that   enslaved everyone subject to it.

 America seriously modified its property rights regime in 1913 without   abandoning it. It now had two contradictory ways of thinking about   property. In the 1930s, the social function or social necessity or   social welfare way of thinking about property rose in importance.   Government intervention into property, by way of both taxation and   regulation, became an accepted feature of American politics.

 But the contradiction remains. Is property private or not? The   extension of government power and violence into a long list of states   like the welfare state, warfare state, penal state, big pharma state,   etc. is a manifestation of interventionism. Even though these   interventions serve only private interest groups, they all are   rationalized by the idea that the intervention policy is overcoming   problems with private property by assuring that propertys social side   is tended to. This basic idea, however, crowds out and destroys private   property. Every state intervention that transfers wealth to   military-industrial businesses, or to banks or to surveillance firms or   to large farmers or to prison builders and prison operators, takes that   wealth from those who own private property.

 Both Left and Right adhere to the idea that property is social. Both   support interventions, but each with its own favored recipients of the   resulting confiscated wealth.

*The long-running crisis in America cannot be ended without resolving  the question of property rights.*  The crisis will continue and deepen as  long as government  interventionism continues. The latter depends on the  theory that the  government can legitimately and justly tax and regulate  for the sake of  society because all property, including all persons and  their wealth,  lie at the governments disposal. *This theory of property  being  social and the institutionalization of this theory are the causes  of  Americas silent and unrecognized crisis.*

If  a person does not own what he or she produces, then who does? If  other  people do, which is the social or collective answer, then we get   constant crisis as an outcome. If everyone owns everything and   everyones wealth collectively, then there will be continual conflicts   about who gets what. The incentive to produce and preserve wealth will   deteriorate. Income production and job opportunities will decline.   Economic crisis results from a political determination that property is   social, not individual.

 The alternative is that each and every person has a right to life,   liberty and the pursuit of happiness, understanding that this comprises   each persons property rights in the wealth and income that he or she   generates, recognizing that each person justly owns what he or she   produces, not other people, not society, not the government and not the   state.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*US: Records from 1905 show that middle-class families were amazingly      prosperous and able to save half of their yearly earnings.*  [Read this article to see how they could do that.      Hint: Taxes have something to do with it.] _Free-Man's      Perspective_ 2013 Jul 16 (Cached)


From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*WOW!*


*How to Fix Detroit in 6 Easy Steps*


FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE · Jul 23rd, 2013 


Abandoned automobile factory in Detroit.


 The news is full of stories of Detroit, and understandably so. Its an unmitigated disaster. But I know how to fix it.

 Seriously, I do!

 I have a plan that would cost the state of Michigan nothing  not a  cent. It wouldnt cost DC anything either, and it would turn Detroit  into the most thriving city in North America. As a bonus, it would give  the remaining property owners in Detroit a financial windfall.

 Heres the plan:


The federal government (in writing) forbears taxes,  regulations, laws, and impositions for a hundred years to the area of  the current municipality of Detroit and to all persons and commercial  entities resident there.The government of the state of Michigan forbears taxes, regulations,  laws, and impositions for a hundred years to the area of the current  municipality of Detroit and to all persons and commercial entities resident there.All municipal government agencies within Detroit are disbanded.All state and federal offices within the city of Detroit are disbanded.The federal government  guarantees that entry and exit to/from Detroit will remain unchanged  from the current conditions, and that no obligations will be placed upon  residents of Detroit in any other place.Federal and state governments immediately cease all payments to  residents of Detroit. (They may resume payment to those persons if and  when they are no longer resident in Detroit.) 


 The final legal document would be more complex than this, but those are all  the main points necessary.

 What this plan does is to return Detroit to its natural state  to  the way it was managed when the first settlers arrived. (In other words,  not managed at all.)

 And think of the money that will be saved by Michigan and the feds. Billions per year.

*And Then*

 And then we have a free for all and a good one. Think of Hong Kong, but easy to get to.

 Businesses would begin to relocate the next morning. Hundreds of  them, thousands of them. The people who still owned and lived in their  homes would be offered lots of money for their properties.

Libertarians and conservatives, disgusted by the gang in DC, would load up and drive to Detroit. Productive former residents  would return. Thousands of opportunity-seekers, anarcho-capitalists,  and pot-smoking hippies would be gathering their money and buying  property.

 Detroit would, within only a few years, become the coolest city on the planet  by FAR.

*But, But*

 But there wont be any police!

 There wont be any courts!

 It will be non-stop murder, death, and mayhem!

_You wanna bet? Do ya?_ (And you dont think Detroit has non-stop mayhem already?)

 The people who come to Detroit would be coming to escape from their  chains and to be productive. These are precisely the kinds of people who  clean up a town. And with no taxes to pay for a hundred years, theyd  have plenty of extra money to spend on whatever services (security or  otherwise) that they wanted.

*The Truth*

 The truth, of course, is that the state and fed guvs will never agree to a plan like this one, for a single reason:

_Because they fear it would succeed_.

 Theyll let every last person in Detroit rot before theyll let a group of producers live free of their chains.

 Detroit returned to its natural state would expose the great lie of the government game  that we cant survive without them.

 Paul Rosenberg

FreemansPerspective.com

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Here’s the plan:
> The federal government (in writing) forbears taxes,   regulations, laws, and impositions for a hundred years to the area of   the current municipality of Detroit and to all persons and commercial   entities resident there.The government of the state of  Michigan forbears taxes, regulations,  laws, and impositions for a  hundred years to the area of the current  municipality of Detroit and to  all persons and commercial entities resident there.All municipal government agencies within Detroit are disbanded.All state and federal offices within the city of Detroit are disbanded.The federal government   guarantees that entry and exit to/from Detroit will remain unchanged   from the current conditions, and that no obligations will be placed upon   residents of Detroit in any other place.Federal and state  governments immediately cease all payments to  residents of Detroit.  (They may resume payment to those persons if and  when they are no  longer resident in Detroit.) 
> 
>  The final legal document would be more complex than this, but those are all  the main points necessary.





> You  could do this on a dry bit of the roughest country on earth, even  inhospitable and costly to survive in mountain tops or desert areas with  no surface or ground water, and it would become the richest place on  earth.


Amen! Would to GOD that the people would comprehend this simple and profound truth!

The  reason for this to work is the Eternal Law of Justice that is being violated by public taxation and public regulation of PRIVATE property.  Remove this injustice and you have prosperity springing out of the  ground! 

JUSTICE is an eternal law. No society can survive or  prosper while violating it; and no society can help but prosper if they  obey it!

----------


## Christian Liberty

I may have responded already, not sure, but "public" property shouldn't exist.

The only tax I'm in favor of is a tariff, which should be assessed at the moment of border crossing, and as a necessary evil.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I may have responded already, not sure, but "public" property shouldn't exist.
> 
> The only tax I'm in favor of is a tariff, which should be assessed at the moment of border crossing, and as a necessary evil.


There is no such thing as a "necessary evil" on principle. It is an oxymoron. A contradiction in itself, and is therefore false. If it was "necessary" it would not be evil. And if it is evil, it is certainly not necessary, otherwise it would not be evil. So you are contradicting yourself in this statement.

But I agree with you that it is evil indeed, and is a violation of JUSTICE.

Public property is property to which all people have equal claim of ownership. Your assertion that it "shouldn't exist" is no more valid than the assertion that joint ownership of property shouldn't exist. If you tried to enforce this assertion, you would be committing aggressive violence, and injustice by definition.

The tariff tax would only be just if it was implemented as public property user fee, where custom or border were public property, and only if such user fee was approved by the majority of the users and was administered equally among them. Otherwise it would be unjust.

You see ownership and justice is the key here. You can only justly tax the things you own, and nothing else, or it would be unjust and would violate private property.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> *Abolish                              the Corporate Income Tax*
> But ignore Pat Buchanan's advice on tariffs.


I don't agree with Pat on tariffs, BTW.  I agree with tariffs to raise revenue, not to control trade.  




> There is no such thing as a "necessary evil" on principle. It is an oxymoron. A contradiction in itself, and is therefore false. If it was "necessary" it would not be evil. And if it is evil, it is certainly not necessary, otherwise it would not be evil. So you are contradicting yourself in this statement.
> 
> But I agree with you that it is evil indeed, and is a violation of JUSTICE.
> 
> Public property is property to which all people have equal claim of ownership. Your assertion that it "shouldn't exist" is no more valid than the assertion that joint ownership of property shouldn't exist. If you tried to enforce this assertion, you would be committing aggressive violence, and injustice by definition.
> 
> The tariff tax would only be just if it was implemented as public property user fee, where custom or border were public property, and only if such user fee was approved by the majority of the users and was administered equally among them. Otherwise it would be unjust.
> 
> You see ownership and justice is the key here. You can only justly tax the things you own, and nothing else, or it would be unjust and would violate private property.


Well, I do think the national border would/should be owned by the government.  One of the few things they should actually own.

Private property can be owned by more than one person, but the only thing government should be allowed to own is the border itself, military bases (In the country, not outside the country), police stations, and courthouses.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I don't agree with Pat on tariffs, BTW.  I agree with tariffs to raise revenue, not to control trade.  
> 
> Well, I do think the national border would/should be owned by the government.  One of the few things they should actually own.
> 
> Private property can be owned by more than one person, but the only thing government should be allowed to own is the border itself, military bases (In the country, not outside the country), police stations, and courthouses.


Well, that in itself contradicts your previous statement that public property should not exist. If public representative government owns something, than, by definition it is PUBLIC PROPERTY. And as I said, public property has a right to exist, just as joint ownership of property has a right to exist.

You are not guided by a principle, but arbitrarily come up with things government should and should not own. That is a flawed approach. On what moral principle do you say that the government should own military bases?

I, on the other hand, can show you my guiding principle. That principle is JUSTICE. What is JUSTICE? Non-violation of private property. That is justice, and nothing else.

Public representative government can justly govern public property only, because the public, collectively, owns it, provided that a) majority agrees, and b) every one is treated equally, since all have equal claim of ownership in it. On the other hand, public representative government has exactly ZERO right to govern/control or tax private property, because it does not own it, and you can only justly govern/control or tax the things you OWN.

Therefore, the only way government could justly own a military base, or a court house, or a police station is if it was built on public land, was agreed to by majority of the people, and was financed by public property user fees administered equally among users, (and the users only): i.e. if you choose to use it, you pay for it, but if you do not wish to use it, you cannot be justly compelled to use it, otherwise it would violate your private property.

If that is the case than you are right.

The question of justice is the question of ownership of property. The question of proper role of government is the question of ownership of property. Ownership of property delineates justice, liberty, proper role of government, and everything else! 

Private property is the most fundamental type of property and is the very key of liberty and justice. All other types of property are derived from Private property.

Case in point: public property. How is it derived from Private property? Everyone's equal share of ownership in public property is his/her private property. Your EQUAL right to travel on public road is your private property, and you cannot be justly dispossessed of that share of ownership, because, again, that equal share of ownership in public property is your Private property.

Thus, Private Property gives meaning to justice, rights, virtue, good, evil, and everything else. (Good is private property. Evil, is violation of private property.) Without private property all these concepts are entirely meaningless and do not exist.

Interestingly, the concept of property takes care of anti-nuisance laws as well. No one has the right to pollute or violate the property of another. You have no right to pollute private or public property of others. Therefore you have no right to violate the public or private property of others with noise, smells, or by projecting offensive images or sounds upon the property of others. As always, property laws give meaning and sense to everything!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*WOW!*


*How to Fix Detroit in 6 Easy Steps*


FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE · Jul 23rd, 2013 


Abandoned automobile factory in Detroit.
 

 The news is full of stories of Detroit, and understandably so. Its an unmitigated disaster. But I know how to fix it.

 Seriously, I do!

 I have a plan that would cost the state of Michigan nothing  not a   cent. It wouldnt cost DC anything either, and it would turn Detroit   into the most thriving city in North America. As a bonus, it would give   the remaining property owners in Detroit a financial windfall.

 Heres the plan:

The federal government (in writing) forbears taxes,   regulations, laws, and impositions for a hundred years to the area of   the current municipality of Detroit and to all persons and commercial   entities resident there.The government of the state of Michigan forbears taxes,  regulations,  laws, and impositions for a hundred years to the area of  the current  municipality of Detroit and to all persons and commercial entities resident there.All municipal government agencies within Detroit are disbanded.All state and federal offices within the city of Detroit are disbanded.The federal government   guarantees that entry and exit to/from Detroit will remain unchanged   from the current conditions, and that no obligations will be placed upon   residents of Detroit in any other place.Federal and state governments immediately cease all  payments to  residents of Detroit. (They may resume payment to those  persons if and  when they are no longer resident in Detroit.) 
  The final legal document would be more complex than this, but those are all  the main points necessary.

 What this plan does is to return Detroit to its natural state  to  the  way it was managed when the first settlers arrived. (In other words,   not managed at all.)

 And think of the money that will be saved by Michigan and the feds. Billions per year.

*And Then*

 And then we have a free for all and a good one. Think of Hong Kong, but easy to get to.

 Businesses would begin to relocate the next morning. Hundreds of  them,  thousands of them. The people who still owned and lived in their  homes  would be offered lots of money for their properties.

Libertarians and conservatives, disgusted by the gang in DC, would load up and drive to Detroit. Productive former residents   would return. Thousands of opportunity-seekers, anarcho-capitalists,   and pot-smoking hippies would be gathering their money and buying   property.

 Detroit would, within only a few years, become the coolest city on the planet  by FAR.

*But, But*

 But there wont be any police!

 There wont be any courts!

 It will be non-stop murder, death, and mayhem!

_You wanna bet? Do ya?_ (And you dont think Detroit has non-stop mayhem already?)

 The people who come to Detroit would be coming to escape from their   chains and to be productive. These are precisely the kinds of people who   clean up a town. And with no taxes to pay for a hundred years, theyd   have plenty of extra money to spend on whatever services (security or   otherwise) that they wanted.

*The Truth*

 The truth, of course, is that the state and fed guvs will never agree to a plan like this one, for a single reason:

_Because they fear it would succeed_.

 Theyll let every last person in Detroit rot before theyll let a group of producers live free of their chains.

 Detroit returned to its natural state would expose the great lie of the government game  that we cant survive without them.

 Paul Rosenberg

FreemansPerspective.com


--------------------------------------
 



> You could do this on a dry bit of the roughest country on earth, even inhospitable and costly to survive in mountain tops or desert areas with no surface or ground water, and it would become the richest place on earth.


Amen! Would to GOD that the people would comprehend this simple and profound truth!

The reason for this to work is the Eternal Law of Justice that is being violated by public taxation and public regulation of PRIVATE property. Remove this injustice and you have prosperity springing out of the ground!

JUSTICE is an eternal law. No society can survive or prosper while violating it; and no society can help but prosper if they obey it!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Modified second paragraph:

"Therefore, all forms of public  taxation of private property, including but not limited to income,  property, and sales taxes, are unjust, and therefore are expressly  forbidden, and are hereby and henceforth abolished."

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Man Pays Tax Bill With Thousands of Single Dollar Bills in Protest 

*Infowars.com*

September 6, 2013

 Robert Fernandes, an IT manager and father of three, moved to Forks  Township, Penn. last year seeking lower property taxes so he could  afford a larger home which could also house his elderly parents.




  His wife home-schools their children, ages 7, 4, and 1.  

 He is not interested in being forced to pay $7,143 in taxes to fund public schools his children do not even attend.

 “We don’t even use the public system, yet I am being forced to pay all this money into a public school system,” he told Leigh Valley Live. “I don’t think that’s really either fair or just or even ethical.

 “It would be the equivalent if McDonald’s were to force vegetarians to pay for their cheeseburgers.”

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Larken Asks some Direct Questions
that will make you shiver (it did me).




Anyone who votes for Public taxation of Private property is committing a crime (knowingly or unknowingly). 

Outside The Cage - Larken Rose - Episode 3 (2/3) 

Outside The Cage - Larken Rose - Episode 3 (3/3)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Tax                Day*

*by                Murray                N. Rothbard
*

*Mises.org* 

_This                unsigned editorial, written by Murray N. Rothbard, appeared in the                April 15, 1969, issue of_ The                Libertarian_ (soon to become_ The Libertarian Forum_).
_ 
April                15, that dread Income Tax day, is around again, and gives us a chance                to ruminate on the nature of taxes and of the government itself.
 The                first great lesson to learn about taxation is that taxation is simply                robbery. No more and no less. For what is "robbery"? Robbery                is the taking of a man’s property by the use of violence or the                threat thereof, and therefore without the victim’s consent. And                yet what else is taxation?
 
Those                who claim that taxation is, in some mystical sense, really "voluntary"                should then have no qualms about getting rid of that vital feature                of the law which says that failure to pay one’s taxes is criminal                and subject to appropriate penalty. But does anyone seriously believe                that if the payment of taxation were really made voluntary, say                in the sense of contributing to the American Cancer Society, that                any appreciable revenue would find itself into the coffers of government?                Then why don’t we try it as an experiment for a few years, or a                few decades, and find out?


But                if taxation is robbery, then it follows as the night the day that                those people who engage in, and live off, robbery are a gang of                thieves. Hence the government is a group of thieves, and deserves,                morally, aesthetically, and philosophically, to be treated exactly                as a group of less socially respectable ruffians would be treated.

 This                issue of _The Libertarian_  is dedicated to that growing legion                of Americans who are engaging in various forms of that one weapon,                that one act of the public which our rulers fear the most: tax rebellion,                the cutting off the funds by which the host public is sapped to                maintain the parasitic ruling classes. Here is a burning issue which                could appeal to everyone, young and old, poor and wealthy, "working                class" and middle class, regardless of race, color, or creed.                Here is an issue which everyone understands, only too well. Taxation.                


 _Murray                  N. Rothbard__                  (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School, founder of modern                  libertarianism, and chief academic officer of the Mises                  Institute. He was also editor – with Lew Rockwell –                  of_ The                  Rothbard-Rockwell Report_,                  and appointed Lew as his executor. See                  Murray's books._

----------


## pcosmar

> *How to Fix Detroit in 6 Easy Steps*


???
Why?
Leave it, Get the hell away from it and let it crumble to dust.. or let people live there as it is,, if they so chose.

This is how all government should be funded,


Anything more invites excess.

----------


## Weston White

> But it is violence just the same.


However, no violence is actually involved in liens, levies, and garnishments; merely due processthat is presuming the taxing agency intends to play by the rules.  Which sadly, is not the case when it comes to the IRS.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> However, no violence is actually involved in liens, levies, and garnishments; merely due process—


All liens, levies, and garnishments are ultimately backed by threats of LETHAL government violence, if you resist them enough. And threat of violence IS violence, in proportion to the ability of the one threatening it. So you are wrong. Liens, levies, and garnishments do not exist without violence. Violence is what they are MADE OF. So you are patently wrong. 

Don't you see that? EVERY government law is a threat of lethal violence if you resist it enough. The fact that you call it "due process" makes it nor more just or moral than calling a mafia extortion racket "due process." 

AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE is the definition of EVIL, and is the definition of INJUSTICE.  




> that is presuming the taxing agency intends to play by “the rules”.  Which sadly, is not the case when it comes to the IRS.


All public taxation of private property is theft, and is immoral and unjust.

Therefore, "playing by the rules" in this context is as meaningless as mafia "playing by the rules" when they ROB you. If the "rule" legitimizes ROBBERY, THEFT, RAPE, or  MURDER, it is a WICKED rule, and is an anathema to JUSTICE. 

You calling it a "rule" does not make it moral or just. Hitler's  concentration camps had rules, which did not make them moral or just  enterprises. Do you see this? Calling something a "rule" does not make  it just. Only Correct Principles do. 

The only RULE that matters is JUSTICE. All other rules, are no rules at all. 

Therefore, by definition:
RAPE, is never "playing by the rules."
Theft, is never "playing by the rules."
Murder, is never "playing by the rules."
Public taxation of Private Property, is never "playing by the rules."  
Why? Because all these are UNJUST. That is the only rule that matters.


Please read the top post for detailed proof that ALL public taxation of private property is UNJUST and therefore immoral.

----------


## Weston White

While that may be true in some circumstances, in most however, such tact is done through a third-party, and ultimately leaves the person directly affected with zero say in the matter, that is upon rendition by the court.

Don’t forget that most of the tax code (IRC), as it pertains to individual taxpayers is purely civil in nature; ergo, there is zero violence and zero physical threat involved in civil law, you are referring to aspects of criminal law, which are strict and limiting.  Remember, there are two-sides to every coin.

*ETA:*

Reasonable indirect taxation is by no means theft; while direct taxation is a mechanism to be implemented only during dire circumstances for acquisitioning a precise sum of revenue.

As well it should be realized without a proper system of taxation there would be no valid means of justice (to which you often reference) available to anybody—for nations would turn into one gigantic Google-Walmart-Monsanto-Xfinity-Apple-Chase-Xe Mafioso free-for-all.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> While that may be true in some circumstances, in most however, such tact is done through a third-party, and ultimately leaves the person directly affected with zero say in the matter,


How are you going to ENFORCE the lien? So a third party is hired to do the violence. Is that supposed to make it all better? So does the mafia. It is still aggressive violence. Aggressive violence is at the foundation of this thing. That's why it is evil by definition. 




> that is upon rendition by the court.


Nazis had courts. Didn't make it right.




> Don’t forget that most of the tax code (IRC), as it pertains to individual taxpayers is purely civil in nature; ergo, there is zero violence and zero physical threat involved in civil law, you are referring to aspects of criminal law, which are strict and limiting.


Wrong. ALL laws enforced by the government are backed by the threat of lethal violence. ALL. Even if a head light in your car goes out, and the policemen flashes his lights at you to stop you, what this means is that you are threatened with LETHAL violence, if you resist it enough. A burned out turn signal in a car is not "criminal law." Yet if you resist it enough the government claims the right to KILL you. If you don't believe me, try not stopping next time a cop flashes his lights at you. So you are dead wrong. Pun intended. 




> Reasonable indirect taxation is by no means theft;


There is no such thing as "reasonable" public taxation of private property, just like there is no such thing as "reasonable" rape. It is evil in and of itself, because it is based on aggressive violence, which is the definition of evil itself. Get it?




> while direct taxation is a mechanism to be implemented only during dire circumstances for acquisitioning a precise sum of revenue.


You realize that mafia can use exactly your logic to commit their crimes? 




> As well it should be realized without a *proper system of taxation*


Let's analyze what* "proper system of taxation"* is. You can rightly tax only the things you own, and nothing else. Because you have no authority over the things you do NOT own. That's what ownership means. 

The government does not own you, nor your property. Therefore, it has exactly zero moral or logical right to "tax" your property. No more than I have the right to tax your property. Don't you see it? Where does the government gets its authority to tax you? Who delegated that authority to it? No one! Because no individual has such authority, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

Therefore, the only "proper system of taxation" by the public representative government is taxation of Public property (i.e. property to which all have equal claim of ownership) in the form of Public property user fees, provided that:
a) majority of the people agree;
b) everyone is treated equally, because everyone has equal claim of ownership in it, and 
c) the property of no one is violated in the process. 



> As well it should be realized without a proper system of taxation there would be no valid means of justice (to which you often reference) available to anybody—


False. You have milk or shoes in the store not because the government taxes everyone to make milk and shoes but because these are PRODUCTS people desire and are willing to pay for. Production of security, that is justice enforcement, are just such products. Free market can deliver them INFINITELY more justly then an unjust government forced monopoly ever can. Read more here: *State or Private-Law Society*.




> for nations would turn into one gigantic Google-Walmart-Monsanto-Xfinity-Apple-Chase-Xe Mafioso free-for-all.


You confuse Crony Government Corporatism (read Fascism) with Free Market. They are the direct opposites of each-other. What makes the two different is AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE (in this case that of the state which gives unjust privileges to certain corporations via aggressive violence of the state). Free Market (i.e. free from aggressive violence) is the ONLY JUST way to deliver ANY product or service, including security (i.e. justice enforcement).

I'll say it again: aggressive violence is the definition of evil and injustice. 
Remove aggressive violence and you have justice, by definition.

----------


## Weston White

> How are you going to ENFORCE the lien? So a third party is hired to do the violence. Is that supposed to make it all better? So does the mafia. It is still aggressive violence. Aggressive violence is at the foundation of this thing. That's why it is evil by definition.


No, a documented order made by the deciding court is either served by a process server or certified mailed to the acting third-party.  You are being overly dramatic with this whole ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLENCE catch-phrase, seriously.

I understand that our government at present very much resembles a mafia; however, that takes us back to the two-sides of every coin I had previously mentioned and hence, there is a fine balance to be reckoned otherwise we find ourselves living from one extreme to another.

The underlying distinction to be realized is that mafias (i.e., thuggish street gangs) exist to the sole benefit of their own crime family, while governments exist to serve only the good of its public.




> Nazis had courts. Didn't make it right.


What in world does the Third-Reich have to do with seeking justice or taxation in America?  On second thought, dont bother answering.  I think I already know what your response is going to be.




> Wrong. ALL laws enforced by the government are backed by the threat of lethal violence. ALL. Even if a head light in your car goes out, and the policemen flashes his lights at you to stop you, what this means is that you are threatened with LETHAL violence, if you resist it enough. A burned out turn signal in a car is not "criminal law." Yet if you resist it enough the government claims the right to KILL you. If you don't believe me, try not stopping next time a cop flashes his lights at you. So you are dead wrong. Pun intended.


No that is not entirely accurate (except perhaps if you happen to live in D.C. or New York then yes, absolutely), but elsewhere you will more likely face less-lethal use of force or pain compliance just to manhandle you so that you may be handcuffed for a search incident to arrest and placed into the back of a patrol vehicle for later identification and processing; which is appropriately attributed to you acting unreasonably and as a consequence escalating the situation from one of merely being issued a fix-it-ticket or traffic citation to one of failure to produce, obstruction, or worse (i.e., the police need to ensure the public safety in that (1) it is lawful for the driver to be on public streets and driving, and (2) both the driver and their vehicle are current and clear on their paperwork and insurancein accord with the laws of their state).




> There is no such thing as "reasonable" public taxation of private property, just like there is no such thing as "reasonable" rape. It is evil in and of itself, because it is based on aggressive violence, which is the definition of evil itself. Get it?


No, taxation is based on advancing the upkeep, structuring, and propriety of society.  Now, stripping away the purity of your rabid emotional appeals, lets instead look at this matter another way.  Would you at least be in agreement then, keeping in-line with your above logic, that no individual has the right or privilege to seek gains or profits through their own productivity, creativity, or effort?  See, this places you in a bit of a pickle because if you say that yes they do, then you also have to admit that there is no way to secure such rights or privileges without either (1) government and taxation, (2) placing yourself as the ultimate aggressor in the enforcement of violence to met those ends, or (3) revisioning all of humanity into a utopia of altruism.

Additionally, you should also come to realize that reasonable taxation entails not the taking of your personal or private property, per se, but a taking from its growth or emanationor in other words your ascension into wealth.  Financial wealth exists only as a devised privilege and not as an inherent right.




> You realize that mafia can use exactly your logic to commit their crimes?


And you do realize that those in the mafia do not consider you (including others) to be their constituents (although perhaps potential marks), yes?  More pointedly, without a form of government and a system of taxation, there is nothing to rein prevention or resolution upon those with mafia-like minds.




> Let's analyze what* "proper system of taxation"* is. You can rightly tax only the things you own, and nothing else. Because you have no authority over the things you do NOT own. That's what ownership means.


Realistically however, along with your individual birthrights comes individual responsibility to yourself and others, which include obligations to aid the society that you unknowingly or reluctantly play a role in.

Additionally, while ownership may substantively determine the method or a class of taxation, authority and ownership are not corollaries.

Also, this argument of yours fails, in that an individual cannot tax oneself; to do so is utterly illogical and pointless.  The purpose of taxation is to provide necessary revenue to the publics treasury, that is all.




> The government does not own you, nor your property. Therefore, it has exactly zero moral or logical right to "tax" your property. No more than I have the right to tax your property. Don't you see it? Where does the government gets its authority to tax you? Who delegated that authority to it? No one! Because no individual has such authority, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have.


Such authority has been decreed by our duly elected representatives through the powers stipulated to them within the compact of our Nations acknowledged fundamental laws.

While anarchism might sound great in theory, in practice it would be absolutely horrid; although perhaps that might change one day in the distant future when human nature has advanced itself enough cognitively.




> Therefore, the only "proper system of taxation" by the public representative government is taxation of Public property (i.e. property to which all have equal claim of ownership) in the form of Public property user fees, provided that:
> a) majority of the people agree;
> b) everyone is treated equally, because everyone has equal claim of ownership in it, and 
> c) the property of no one is violated in the process.


Well, there already is such a means of taxation in use (e.g., roadway tolls, parking meter fees, entrance fees, etc.; taxes for public schools embedded in home ownership; taxes for roads, highways, and freeways embedded in fuel purchases; etc.)




> False. You have milk or shoes in the store not because the government taxes everyone to make milk and shoes but because these are PRODUCTS people desire and are willing to pay for. Production of security, that is justice enforcement, are just such products. Free market can deliver them INFINITELY more justly then an unjust government forced monopoly ever can. Read more here: *State or Private-Law Society*.


You are convoluting the point as free-markets are beside the point.  Ergo, what are you to do when your little boy is stabbed to death for his nice fancy basketball shoes; or you come to find out that the free socks that came with the purchase of your own shoes were made with a process involving the use of formaldehyde and have been making you and many other very ill;  or when your granddaughter is the 2,550 person to be severely poisoned by tainted milk from the same manufacture over the course of the last 2-years; or when it is made known to the public that Nike has been involved in conspiring shady backroom deals (e.g., antitrust violations) designed to skyrocket the prices of a new line of basketball shoes that have since become so expensive that the only way for most to own a pair is to kill for them (pun intended)?




> You confuse Crony Government Corporatism (read Fascism) with Free Market. They are the direct opposites of each-other. What makes the two different is AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE (in this case that of the state which gives unjust privileges to certain corporations via aggressive violence of the state). Free Market (i.e. free from aggressive violence) is the ONLY JUST way to deliver ANY product or service, including security (i.e. justice enforcement).


While, you seemingly dismiss that a positive equilibrium can be achieved in both public policy (as by regulatory law) and the free-markets.  Meanwhile, what we have now is thru-and-thru corporatism being embedded into all nationalized businesses, while our states, local cities and counties, have come to function not as governmental entities, but as corporations vested with like powers of governance.

Moreover, you dismiss the realization that without governmental involvement, the Google-Walmart-Monsanto-Xfinity-Apple-Chase-Xe Mafioso free-for-all that (to whatever degree) socially besets us at present, would be worsened by tenfold.




> I'll say it again: aggressive violence is the definition of evil and injustice. 
> Remove aggressive violence and you have justice, by definition.


And without a form of government and a system of taxation thus enabling it to properly function there can be no justice, only a lawless ochlocracy wildly functioning on a combination of emotion and self-preservation.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The difference between you and me is that I believe in self-ownership, Private Property, Justice, and Non-Aggression, and you do not. 

  But you will say “Of course I believe in these things!” Yes, but not consistently. Your position is equivalent to saying, “I do not believe in murder and rape, except on Tuesdays.” Government is your “Tuesday.” You believe in theft, murder and rape as long as it is done by the government. I am not trying to antagonize you; I am simply pointing out the inconsistency, and self-contradiction of your position. 

  Now, I am going to show it in detail from your post.




> No, a documented order made by the deciding court is either served by a process server or certified mailed to the acting third-party. You are being overly dramatic with this whole ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLENCE catch-phrase, seriously.


Not really. The fact that your aggressive violence is sanitized and hidden, does not change the fact that it is still there. 

Law means nothing unless it is ENFORCED. The act of enforcing an unjust law is an act of aggressive violence against individual and his property. When bank accounts are seized it is an act of aggressive violence. When wages are garnished, it is an act of aggressive violence. Why? Because the government does not own these things, yet it takes them by force. It is THEFT and legalized plunder in the strictest definition of the term. 

It is evil.




> I understand that our government at present very much resembles a “mafia”; however, … The underlying distinction to be realized is that mafias (i.e., thuggish street gangs) exist to the sole benefit of their own crime family, while governments exist to serve only the good of its public.


You said it. They ACT like mafia, because they are violating the Non-Aggression principle, the heart and core of Justice and Liberty. 

  If government violates the Non-Aggression principle it is WORSE than mafia, because it is far more organized and powerful, and fakes moral superiority for its crimes. Thus, it is WORSE than mafia. Far worse. 




> What in world does the Third-Reich have to do with seeking justice or taxation in America?


Because both practice aggressive violence. One is a bit more brazen than the other, but in principle, they are the same. Also, I was pointing out the folly of your presumption that if something is sanctioned by a court it is just. History proves you wrong. In spades.




> No that is not entirely accurate (except perhaps if you happen to live in D.C. or New York then yes, absolutely), but elsewhere you will more likely face less-lethal use of force or pain compliance just to manhandle you so that you may be handcuffed for a search incident to arrest and placed into the back of a patrol vehicle for later identification and processing; which is appropriately attributed to you acting unreasonably and as a consequence escalating the situation from one of merely being issued a fix-it-ticket or traffic citation to one of failure to produce, obstruction, or worse


My point is that ANY government law is backed by the threat of lethal violence IF YOU RESIST IT ENOUGH. If you continue to resist a government law, however minor, they claim the right to escalate it up to, and including the point of killing you. So you have proven my point. 




> Would you at least be in agreement then, keeping in-line with your above logic, that no individual has the right or privilege to seek gains or profits through their own productivity, creativity, or effort?


No. I am not in agreement with that. The reverse is true:

  EVERY “individual has the right or privilege to seek gains or profits through their own productivity, creativity, or effort.”




> See, this places you in a bit of a pickle because if you say that “yes they do”, then you also have to admit that there is no way to secure such rights or privileges without either (1) government and taxation, (2) placing yourself as the ultimate aggressor in the enforcement of violence to met those ends, or (3) revisioning all of humanity into a utopia of altruism.


False. JUSTICE (that is Non-Aggression, that is Free Market) is the only practical and self-sustaining thing in the Universe. All other systems are self-contradictory, and will unavoidably self-destruct. 

Your points (1), (2), and (3) are completely impractical, unnecessary, and self-contradictory. 




> Additionally, you should also come to realize that reasonable taxation entails not the taking of your personal or private property, per se, but a taking from its growth or emanation— or in other words your ascension into wealth.


 Growth of private property is private property. It belongs to the owner of the property. Taxing the growth of private property is fundamentally just as immoral and unjust as taxing private property. Because it IS private property.  You, individually, have no right to “tax” the growth of your neighbor’s property. And since you, individually have no such right, you cannot delegate it to any third party, including the government, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have. 

No one can. It is an oxymoron. Self-contradiction.




> without a form of government and a system of taxation, there is nothing to rein prevention or resolution upon those with mafia-like minds.


Public taxation of private property IS “mafia-like” enterprise. It is wholly immoral and blatantly unjust. It is wholesale aggression against private property, or in other words, it is wholesale organized crime. It is nothing more than mafia style “protection” racket: “We will rob you now, so no one may rob you later” deal. They cannot even promise that. Government’s “protection” is dismal at best, and completely unjust. 

Free Market can deliver security services much more economically (without confiscating over half of your income), and infinitely more justly than the inherently unjust government forced monopoly of “law enforcement.” 

But this is not surprising. Whenever you have a government forced monopoly on delivery of a service, quality goes down and the price goes up. Read more here: *State or Private-Law Society*.




> Realistically however, along with your individual birthrights comes individual responsibility to yourself and others, which include obligations to aid the society that you unknowingly or reluctantly play a role in.


It is a moral responsibility, that is fulfilled by you being a good and productive person interacting with others on VOLUNTARY/non-coercive, and thus mutually beneficial basis. This is how you benefit the society, and not by destroying Liberty and therefore JUSTICE via legalized plunder and aggressive violence. 

In the final analysis it is JUSTICE that you are rebelling against. The ancient commandment of God: “Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not kill.” This is what you are rebelling against. This is not how you build a good, free, moral, and just society! Not at all!




> authority and ownership are not corollaries


Authority is a function of ownership. It does not exist without ownership. 

So you are wrong. 

There is no just authority without ownership. Government is ownership. You have a right to govern your property. Your neighbor has the right to govern his property. And you have exactly ZERO authority to govern that which is not your property. 

It is a general principle. Government is NOT excluded from it. In fact, it has been the root of all social evil, to assume that government is somehow exempt from this law of JUSTICE. 

It is JUSTICE that you are rebelling against. What is JUSTICE? 

  Justice is Non-violation of Private Property. Nothing more, nothing less. Justice is completely meaningless without Private Property. 




> Also, this argument of yours fails, in that an individual cannot tax oneself; to do so is utterly illogical and pointless.


Taxation is extraction of wealth by force. It is only justified over your own property. You can tax your own property in the form of rent or user fee. If someone lives in a house you own, you can tax their living in YOUR house, because it is YOUR house. However you cannot tax their living in THEIR house, because it is not your house. Do you see the difference?




> Such authority has been decreed by our duly elected representatives through the powers stipulated to them within the compact of our Nation’s acknowledged fundamental laws.


Watch this. It summarizes the correct principles very well:

 *"Right to Rob You"*


 
  To summarize: No “duly elected representatives” have any say over your property, because they do not own it. No such “powers [can be] stipulated to them” because they do not own your property. 

It is a falsehood. A lie. A grave ERROR. An INJUSTICE codified into the “fundamental laws.” It is, therefore, an abomination. 

And because it is UNJUST, it is no law at all.

  Read more here:
*The Correct Principles of Liberty and The Errors of the US Constitution*




> While anarchism might sound great in theory, in practice it would be absolutely horrid; although perhaps that might change one day in the distant future when human nature has advanced itself enough cognitively.


You are wrong. What you call “anarchism” is nothing more than JUSTICE itself. JUSTICE is nothing more than non-aggression. It implies the right to use EQUAL force to offset/neutralize the aggression of another against your property.  

JUSTICE is the ONLY practical thing that exists. THEFT and plunder are impractical, because any society that embraces them will unavoidably self-destruct. 




> taxes for public schools embedded in home ownership; taxes for roads, highways, and freeways embedded in fuel purchases;


Public property user fees to be just must follow three conditions. They must be:
a) agreed upon by the majority of the people,
b) administered equally among the users, because all have equal claim of ownership in it, and 
c) administered without violation of property and natural, unalienable rights of any individual. 
  The examples you sighted above violate all three, and therefore are unjust and immoral.




> You are convoluting the point as free-markets are beside the point.


If free-markets are beside the point, then JUSTICE is beside the point, because truly Free Market is nothing more or less than an implementation of Non-Aggression principle, and therefore is an expression of JUSTICE. And if JUSTICE is not important to you, we have nothing to talk about. 




> Ergo, what are you to do when your little boy is stabbed to death for his nice fancy basketball shoes; or you come to find out that the free socks that came with the purchase of your own shoes were made with a process involving the use of formaldehyde and have been making you and many other very ill; or when your granddaughter is the 2,550 person to be severely poisoned by tainted milk from the same manufacture over the course of the last 2-years;


 Private free market security forces do not violate principles of justice, whereas government’s “protection” racket financed by aggressive violence of taxation violates justice. 

Free market will have justice enforcement much BETTER than the unjust, by definition, government forced “protection” racket. 

In fact, regulations of Free Market are MUCH stricter than those of current government. EPA and FDA give licenses to pollute food and environment with poisons, and shield the guilty corporations from the demands of justice by aggressive violence of the state. None of that is permitted in a Free Market. 

You have no right to violate the property of your neighbor at all. So food and environment will be much safer if justice, that is Free Market is allowed to operate, dealing justice to the guilty, unimpeded in its operations by the unjust, aggressive violence of the state, which protects the criminals and allows them to continue their crimes. 




> or when it is made known to the public that Nike has been involved in conspiring shady backroom deals (e.g., antitrust violations) designed to skyrocket the prices


All real monopolies are created by the aggressive violence of the state. Read more here: *Abolish Antitrust Laws*.    




> Meanwhile, what we have now is thru-and-thru corporatism


Yes. Corporatism, by definition is the marriage of corporations and the state, also known as Fascism. It is the aggressive violence of the state that makes corporatism possible. Remove government’s aggressive violence, and corporatism ends. 




> Moreover, you dismiss the realization that without governmental involvement, the Google-Walmart-Monsanto-Xfinity-Apple-Chase-Xe Mafioso free-for-all that (to whatever degree) socially besets us at present, would be worsened by tenfold.


It is PRECISELY government's involvement, in the form of AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE of the state, that makes corporatism possible. Remove aggressive violence of the state, and corporatism falls by the hand of Free Market, because the guilty corporations will no longer be able to use the government's violence to shield themselves from the demands of justice. 

AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE is the culprit here, primarily aggressive violence of the state, which is much greater than the aggressive violence of corporations. 




> And without a form of government and a system of taxation thus enabling it to properly function there can be no justice


If by “taxation” you mean public taxation of private property, then your statement is an oxymoron (self-contradiction). You are saying: “And without a form of government and a system of INJUSTICE and LEGALIZED PLUNDER thus enabling it to properly function there can be no justice.” That is an oxymoron. You are contradicting yourself. 

You cannot insure justice with injustice. 

  JUSTICE, i.e. Free Market, is the ONLY viable, practical system that CAN ever exist. It will not be perfect, because men are imperfect, but it will be MUCH more perfect than the institutionalized injustice we have now. 

If men are not “evolved” enough to govern themselves, what makes you think they are evolved enough to govern others? By creating an unjust monopoly of force, you multiply the woes of wicked men, who are thus placed in a position of much greater power so they can do much greater damage. How is that preferable? Your position is self-contradictory again. 

So, you are wrong. Profoundly so. 

Learn the *Fundamental Principles of Liberty*, then all these questions will become easy and self-evident.

----------


## Weston White

OK, I am going to read your post, although I will not be replying to it any further (to note though, in reading over it so far, the few key points I had attempted to make, I am not seeing that you satisfactorily explained your logic in a way to reasonably substantiate the beliefs you argue).  I feel there is no need to as I have already thoroughly stated my own position.  Anything more will just make this become circular.  Hence, this is why debating or even attempting to reason with anarchists or anarcho-capitalists is ultimately moot.  To them there is just no calling for achieving balance, compromise, or middle-ground.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> OK, I am going to read your post, although I will not be replying to it any further (to note though, in reading over it so far, the few key points I had attempted to make, I am not seeing that you satisfactorily explained your logic in a way to reasonably substantiate the beliefs you argue). I feel there is no need to as I have already thoroughly stated my own position. Anything more will just make this become circular. Hence, this is why debating or even attempting to reason with anarchists or anarcho-capitalists is ultimately moot. To them there is just no calling for achieving balance, compromise, or middle-ground.


There is no compromise with rape. There is no balance with plunder. There is no middle-ground with injustice. 

Either we will have justice or not. That is the choice. You are "a little bit pregnant" with the lying allure of aggressive violence, which is the very definition of evil itself. Such will always give birth to the full grown tyranny, unless evil is rejected completely. There can be no compromise with that, because if you pick up one end of the stick you also pick up the other.

Good luck in finding and understanding the truth. It is important. 

But believe me, you will not find the blaze of truth in one hundred shades of grey. 

Truth is absolute and immutable like the pillars of eternity. So good luck.

----------


## Weston White

> There is no compromise with rape. There is no balance with plunder. There is no middle-ground with injustice. 
> 
> Either we will have justice or not. That is the choice. You are "a little bit pregnant" with the lying allure of aggressive violence, which is the very definition of evil itself. Such will always give birth to the full grown tyranny, unless evil is rejected completely. There can be no compromise with that, because if you pick up one end of the stick you also pick up the other.
> 
> Good luck in finding and understanding the truth. It is important. 
> 
> But believe me, you will not find the blaze of truth in one hundred shades of grey. 
> 
> Truth is absolute and immutable like the pillars of eternity. So good luck.


Wow, alright, so thank you for this additional witty retort of yours.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Wow, alright, so thank you for this additional witty retort of yours.


Any time, my friend. 

Thanks for the debate.

----------


## Weston White

Sorry, perhaps I fibbed a bit.  In reading through your response, I found it filled with so much offensive prose and disinformation that I simply needed to reply to nearly all of it.  So without further ado:




> The difference between you and me is that I believe in self-ownership, Private Property, Justice, and Non-Aggression, and you do not.


Well to me, that sounds like a recipe that would definitely pave the pathway for society to devolve into one of survival of the fittest, while only encouraging yet more thuggish gang-sprawl.

And thank you for telling me what it is that I believe in, because I have been wondering about that all of my life.

Seriously, though I do believe in such things as listed above, just in a reasonably proper context.




> You believe in theft, murder and rape as long as it is done by the government. I am not trying to antagonize you; I am simply pointing out the inconsistency, and self-contradiction of your position.


Again, this is really so grand, I just find it absolutely amazing that you happen to know so much about me, which is sort of scary actually.

Yet again, no I do not believe that it is ever alright or justified for the government or those employed under it to commit any such acts as listed above; and to do so is a damming violation of the public’s trust.




> When wages are garnished, it is an act of aggressive violence. Why? Because the government does not own these things, yet it takes them by force. It is THEFT and legalized plunder in the strictest definition of the term.
> 
> It is evil.


Incorrect, when wages are garnished it is an act of authority that must be wholly justified under codified public law and then procedurally certified prior to action, “violence”, “theft”, or “plunder” almost never figures into the equation—and should it, the individual having been wronged by the wrongful actions of their government have apt administrative and legal recourses to afford themselves restitution.




> They ACT like mafia, because they are violating the Non-Aggression principle, the heart and core of Justice and Liberty.


While that simplifies it a bit, I would propose that it is more correct to state that they serve the public in such a tyrannous manner due to a fundamental misunderstanding and abuse of their very limited granted powers of their public office; in conjunction with a complete lack of insight with regards to the public laws and regulations they have been charged with enforcing, the near limitless funding to carry out the performance of their presumed duties, and a legislature that remains largely silent or standoffish to such excessive malice and negligence.




> If government violates the Non-Aggression principle it is WORSE than mafia, because it is far more organized and powerful, and fakes moral superiority for its crimes. Thus, it is WORSE than mafia. Far worse.


A proper system of governance could never function under NAP/ZAP—we tried something similar to that already as the Confederate States of America, and it was largely a failure.

So the mafia possesses a legitimate moral superiority for its crimes, while a government functioning under a compact does not?  Is this because under anarchism a mafia would simply adopt itself as part of the free market (e.g., the black market or red-light district) and thereby justify itself?




> Also, I was pointing out the folly of your presumption that if something is sanctioned by a court it is just. History proves you wrong. In spades.


Germany has not until recently operated under a form of America’s system of government (i.e., 1960’).  We have due process under a common law republic, while they did not and only now have a flex-version of our own due process.

And it was the Nuremberg trials that made the Nazis somewhat accountable by their actions and crimes against humanity.




> My point is that ANY government law is backed by the threat of lethal violence IF YOU RESIST IT ENOUGH. If you continue to resist a government law, however minor, they claim the right to escalate it up to, and including the point of killing you. So you have proven my point.


Yet you assert that under your notion of a private free market security force that same would not also hold true?

So then in the case of a private security force, I can simply tort another individual and then resist their attempts to confront me, to avoid them holding me accountable for my wrongful act against another, and then I am just free to go and be left alone?  Is this not a fallacy in itself?

Additionally, are you unaware of the blatant acts of criminality that Blackwater/Xe and Wackenhut employees are alleged of committing and that such would only become worse without the intervention of a criminal justice system and the procedural mandates of government that are part and parcel to our system of governance?




> No. I am not in agreement with that.


Then you unwillingly admit to the fallibility of your position, you cannot have it both ways (e.g., without the establishing of organized authority or as you call it “evil force”, such rights or privileges cannot ever be assured).




> False. JUSTICE (that is Non-Aggression, that is Free Market) is the only practical and self-sustaining thing in the Universe. All other systems are self-contradictory, and will unavoidably self-destruct.


It should be realized that laissez-faire does involve the prudent use of regulating through government; while, just as too much governmental interference is bad, so is too little.  Free markets are truly free and just when they can willingly function and compete with the demands of the public, while at the same time ensuring that both the environment and its populace remain unharmed in the process.




> Your points (1), (2), and (3) are completely impractical, unnecessary, and self-contradictory.


Really, how is that exactly?  From my point of view your reply is left rather unsubstantiated.




> Growth of private property is private property. It belongs to the owner of the property. Taxing the growth of private property is fundamentally just as immoral and unjust as taxing private property. Because it IS private property. You, individually, have no right to “tax” the growth of your neighbor’s property. And since you, individually have no such right, you cannot delegate it to any third party, including the government, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.


Correct, I cannot tax another for any reason, whatsoever, as I am not the government.

However, you may delegate your property to another party, third-party or otherwise, it is called a contract amongst consenting adults (i.e., a social contract).

As an individual I can arrange a binding agreement amongst my neighbors, so long as they are all in agreement to the terms.

America’s social contract may be found within our U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.  Pretending that these legal documents are nonexistent is simply to avoid reality.




> No one can. It is an oxymoron. Self-contradiction.


No, not at all, for it was only for an organized society (i.e., the authority of a governing body) that provided you with the means of achieving your personal financial growth.  For example, you may have caught a ton of seafood to sell to local stores and restaurants, but they were not yours, you did not make them, and yet you took them to use in order to meet your own self-serving needs, while society as a whole permitted for you to do so.  The same is to be stated when mining natural resources, such as precious metals, coal, crude oil, logging, hunting game, potable water tables, etc.; while, such objects of desire may have originated on the very land that you own, they are finite and mutually beneficial to the whole of society and its surrounding ecosystem.  This further includes statutory protections afforded to you from patent and copyright infringement against those many inventions or self-help books that you have written over the span of your life.




> Free Market can deliver security services much more economically (without confiscating over half of your income), and infinitely more justly than the inherently unjust government forced monopoly of “law enforcement.”


Really, how so, being that there is no recognizable—just—system of governmental authority to ratify and enforce laws upon the populace?

Moreover, law enforcement itself does not take over half of your income—that blames goes solely to the ramped despotism of governmental entities acting in a pseudo-corporate capacity.

So you reject justice by government involvement that functions under the black letter of law, while advocating for justice to be privatized under a vague and ambiguous presumption of ethical values and morality, which inevitably will be valued and perceived differently from one person to the next, from one locale to the next, from one tragedy to the next?  While, certainly, one can predetermine what the answer will be from a habitually violent womanizer or misogynist, from a lifelong pedophile, or from a reoffending hit and run drunk driver.

So truly, in your view justice only become tainted or “enforced and evil” when commenced by the “government”, yet remains pristine when provided through the “security forces” of free markets?

You of course must realize that what you propose is simply governance by another form; yielding to the same substance?

Regardless, the free markets already have a privatized form of security, they are call armed/unarmed security guards, and personally I would not trust a single one of them to address any serious breach of the peace let alone the complex matters pertaining to ethics violations.




> It is a moral responsibility, that is fulfilled by you being a good and productive person interacting with others on VOLUNTARY/non-coercive, and thus mutually beneficial basis. This is how you benefit the society, and not by destroying Liberty and therefore JUSTICE via legalized plunder and aggressive violence.


You know, I have to ponder is it merely coincidental that nearly every person that I have ever come across holding such beliefs all have one thing in common; they are vagabonds and live their lives doing whatever it is that they want, whenever they want, without any real care or regard to others (be it jaywalking, trespassing, stealing or shoplifting, urinating in public, littering, drinking in public, loitering, or whatever else).




> In the final analysis it is JUSTICE that you are rebelling against. The ancient commandment of God: “Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not kill.” This is what you are rebelling against. This is not how you build a good, free, moral, and just society! Not at all!


It is odd that you now turn to religion to further substantiate your points, being that religion is itself one of the oldest constructs of governing—also noting that empirically, religion has resulted in devising the most chaotic, hostile, and uncertain means of justifying rule over others.

Well unfortunately not everybody practices religion—even still many who do are actually closet hypocrites.  So when people do not follow such proclaimed moral edicts it is for governments to step in for the purposes of retaining and reassuring the public’s order.

This final analysis of yours fails in that according to you it is government itself that causes people to resort to evil acts and disparities and that such are not actions which are inherent within people themselves (lending exception of course to crimes of poverty, which would likely be attributed to the inappropriate actions of government).  As if by taking away government that people will not ever again murder, rape, rob, fight, steal, accuse, or commit acts of arson, fraud, negligence, molestation, incest, infidelity, tort, libel, slander, etc.  Historically, there is nothing to prove this to be factual.




> Authority is a function of ownership. It does not exist without ownership.


Actually, I was referring to the authority of government—that is to say, the establishing of its jurisdiction over you or your possessions—to take action against the presumed ownership in property or possession of another.

Without a procedure of laws to be followed and enforced, either a stronger person or larger group can exert the personal authority of their desires or wills over the vested ownership of your property and without any legal recourse being necessary or repercussion to themselves.




> There is no just authority without ownership. Government is ownership. You have a right to govern your property. Your neighbor has the right to govern his property. And you have exactly ZERO authority to govern that which is not your property.


I disagree a well-intended government is one that provides structure, organization, and security to society.

Remember, it just so happens that such authority has been provided for by our social compact; otherwise, who cares if it is just authority or not, for justice devolves to being purely relative; for example, I say it was just for me to steal and sell your horse, yet you would argue that what I did was unjust, either way according to what you are proposing it matters not, because you no longer have any recourse that will provide you with justice.  Your notion is intent on me always opting to perpetually take the morally proper action and whenever I dare not to, it simply resolves itself to your personal loss and my personal gain.

Government represents both the justification and platform of individual authority to rectify acknowledged wrongs committed throughout its society.




> It is a general principle. Government is NOT excluded from it. In fact, it has been the root of all social evil, to assume that government is somehow exempt from this law of JUSTICE.


Again, it is not that government is exempt from justice, it is that exacting provisions of state and individual sovereignty has been stipulated within our social compact, so as to aspire a more perfect union of states and federalism.




> Justice is Non-violation of Private Property. Nothing more, nothing less. Justice is completely meaningless without Private Property.


Government is composed of people entrusted to serve the collective needs of an individualistic society; they are however, not going to do so for free.   As the saying goes: you get what you pay for.




> Taxation is extraction of wealth by force. It is only justified over your own property. You can tax your own property in the form of rent or user fee. If someone lives in a house you own, you can tax their living in YOUR house, because it is YOUR house. However you cannot tax their living in THEIR house, because it is not your house. Do you see the difference?


There are various methods of taxation, many of which are entirely voluntary.

No, that is not what a tax is, that is however what one would call income.  Ergo, taxes are intended to take money away from you, not to provide you with additional monies.

You are missing the differentiation between what comprises an individual person and what comprises a governmental body.




> To summarize: No “duly elected representatives” have any say over your property, because they do not own it. No such “powers [can be] stipulated to them” because they do not own your property. 
> 
> It is a falsehood. A lie. A grave ERROR. An INJUSTICE codified into the “fundamental laws.” It is, therefore, an abomination. 
> 
> And because it is UNJUST, it is no law at all.


Again, yes such powers may be stipulated to a body of affirmed representatives, you even mentioned what that very authority is within your reply, and it is based upon our social contract—our Nation’s most sacred and fundamental law.

Call it what you will, that is your right, but still, it remains exactly what it is.  Have you perhaps, considered, expatriating (it would seem that doing so would suit you well)?




> You are wrong. What you call “anarchism” is nothing more than JUSTICE itself. JUSTICE is nothing more than non-aggression. It implies the right to use EQUAL force to offset/neutralize the aggression of another against your property.


No, anarchism is the notion of voluntary compliance within an individually autonomous society—and at its best it is a complete pipedream.

Moreover, it is just an oddity that anarchists (even since their advent in the late 1800’), being so intent upon seeking only non-aggression and justice and the like, are primarily viewed throughout society as being violent trouble makers—that advocate violent revolution to meet their end objectives?

Here is a brain buster to ponder, when anarchists demonstrate and smash out shop windows or set vehicles and dumpsters on fire is that what they are doing, i.e., using equal force to offset or neutralize aggression against the property of another?

‘Tis hypocrisy poring over?




> JUSTICE is the ONLY practical thing that exists. THEFT and plunder are impractical, because any society that embraces them will unavoidably self-destruct.


I would argue that personal choice, freedom of thought, expression, and feeling are the only practical things to exist.

Justice is a simply a means to bring resolution against a wrong committed against another or their property.  The most effective way to obtain true justice is through a structured, organized society—and hence governance.

Again prudent taxation is neither theft nor plunder.  Sure using such descriptive words sounds flashy and all, but in reality that is to misuse those words outside of their intended definitions.

Conveniently, you overlook the “free rider problem” associated with NAP/ZAP.




> 1.  Public property user fees to be just must follow three conditions. They must be: 
> a) agreed upon by the majority of the people,
> b) administered equally among the users, because all have equal claim of ownership in it, and 
> c) administered without violation of property and natural, unalienable rights of any individual.
> 
> The examples you sighted above violate all three, and therefore are unjust and immoral.


No that is untrue.  New taxes are voted upon by either the people within their state of residence (or otherwise through their elected body of representatives) and includes a separate legislative process that first occurs, which as well permits a forum for voters to voice their concerns either in person, by phone, or through correspondence.

Generally, taxes are imposed identically (i.e., uniformly) upon each individual or business; although, I will defer that at present there are far too many special exceptions, exemptions, deductions, and the like being permitted at all levels of government.

In accordance with your high standards it would be an impossibility to ever satisfy the requirements you set in rule (c), being that there will be somebody that always complains that they are being robbed or aggressed against, that they never use that public feature, that the public object has already been paid for so no more taxes should be collected upon it, etc.

Moreover, why is only a majority of the people required to consent to this means of taxation; meaning that neither is this in-line with the theorems of NAP/ZAP, only a unanimous agreement would be.




> If free-markets are beside the point, then JUSTICE is beside the point, because truly Free Market is nothing more or less than an implementation of Non-Aggression principle, and therefore is an expression of JUSTICE. And if JUSTICE is not important to you, we have nothing to talk about.


Not exactly, free markets are simply those that are permitted to function economically without being burdened by governing bodies; such does not preclude governing regulations to ensure such things as the safety of both the public and a business’s employees, the preservation of the environment, or prudent taxation to generate a reasonable sum of revenue.

Justice is a concern entirely distinctive from free markets.




> Private free market security forces do not violate principles of justice, whereas government’s “protection” racket financed by aggressive violence of taxation violates justice.


Upon exactly what legal authority would they operate?

Why would a private security force not violate justice, yet bona fide law enforcement personnel do?

Is there a readily conflict of interest presenting itself here?  For example, is this anything like when you get taken into backroom of a casino for card counting and man-handed by mafia-like goons that threaten to snip off a finger or to split your nose down the middle?




> Free market will have justice enforcement much BETTER than the unjust, by definition, government forced “protection” racket.


Yes, I am certain they would, being that there would be nothing in law for them to enforce, so one could not claim or discern if they acted appropriately or inappropriately.

More seriously though, there is nothing reality based to substantiate such a statement.  Additionally, would you ever actually want to be confronted by Blackwater/Xe or Wackenhut mercenaries, err… employees?  Personally, I know that I would not.




> In fact, regulations of Free Market are MUCH stricter than those of current government. EPA and FDA give licenses to pollute food and environment with poisons, and shield the guilty corporations from the demands of justice by aggressive violence of the state. None of that is permitted in a Free Market.


While certainly, virtually all governing agencies have long since become infested, high-jacked or strong-armed by eugenicist, power hungry and shortsighted, obtuse occultists and cabals.  However, it must be realized that this is attributed to any entirely separate and distinctive issue that entails a long held agenda to bring about an entirely new form of multinational governance (e.g., internationalism or the NWO).

Free markets could truly care less about their consumers—their sole concern is invested in appeasing their share-holders.  Really now, do you think Phillip Morris cares or has ever cared about you?  Smokers are addicts; do you honestly believe they are at all concerned themselves with the affects long term smoking causes to their health?

How about a manufacturer of meth or crack, don’t think they are going to cut corners to bag more cash, are they going to be concerned with informing their cliental of the dangers involved with using their synthetic products?

What about companies that import hazard laced items from other nations, such as items that use lead in paint, asbestos, melamine in imported milk, foaming agents in the McNuggets, meat broth in vegan french-fries, etc?

Think cell-phone or wireless device companies care about your safety or the damage they are inflicting upon the environment or insects.

Are drug and vaccine companies are going to be completely truthful with either their customers or those they do their initial testing on (e.g., Bayer, H5N1 testing, HPV vaccinations, etc.)?

If free markets are permitted the option of using force—being that there is no longer an authoritative regulation otherwise preventing them from doing so—against their customers to increase their bottom-line, you can bet the bank that they will begin doing so, quick and fast.




> You have no right to violate the property of your neighbor at all. So food and environment will be much safer if justice, that is Free Market is allowed to operate, dealing justice to the guilty, unimpeded in its operations by the unjust, aggressive violence of the state, which protects the criminals and allows them to continue their crimes.


Sure, while I might have no right to intrude upon another, without an organized system of government, what exactly is there to stop me?  Nothing, simply for in the end it would come down a combination of peer pressure, survival of the fittest, and gang mentality.

You are seemingly ignoring the ominous fact that regardless if the government has made exception for certain companies to harm other or commit otherwise illegal acts, the government still does not compel or force those very companies to what it is that they do, for they do so on their own cognizance; ergo, such companies, and others, would simply continue those very same practices, just without first seeking governmental intervention.  Additionally, this would serve to create a ripple effect in the free markets, simply for other companies would need to engage in like or similar practices to compete or advance their share of the market.

Moreover, you overlook that it is companies that lobby the government for professional favors and not the other way around.  Just imagine the possibilities that could be achieved by those same companies sans the need to pay exorbitant sums to lobbyists for the purchasing of necessary votes throughout the legislature?




> All real monopolies are created by the aggressive violence of the state. Read more here: Abolish Antitrust Laws.


While, certainly that could be an element involved in realizing a monopoly, there are other elements as well, such as corporate fraud, collusion, or conspiracy involving wealthy national corporations or their subsidiaries.

Enron could have just as well occurred even without the aid of government—in fact one would not be too far off in stating that Enron was effectively shut down because of government involvement (although too little, too late).
*  And please, don’t even state that Enron was the free market at its finest.

Sure there is much ridiculousness to statutory interpretation of said antitrust laws by governing bodies; however, that is largely based more upon intentional harassment under the guise of upholding “the law”, while covertly, the real motivation is to supplement a lobbying company’s share of the market by manipulating the choices or options available to consumers—as an indirect means of altering the habits and preferences of the population at large.

Undoubtedly, similar antics would take place without government involvement.




> Yes. Corporatism, by definition is the marriage of corporations and the state, also known as Fascism. It is the aggressive violence of the state that makes corporatism possible. Remove government’s aggressive violence, and corporatism ends.


Keeping in mind of course that even with an existing government other alternatives are possible, which are devoid of both corporatism and fascism.

…Or otherwise, simply prevent by statute greed, intervention, and meddling—including preferential lobbying—by those in government and both corporatism and fascism cease to remain.




> It is PRECISELY government's involvement, in the form of AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE of the state, that makes corporatism possible. Remove aggressive violence of the state, and corporatism falls by the hand of Free Market, because the guilty corporations will no longer be able to use the government's violence to shield themselves from the demands of justice.


Actually, this was in reference to monopolizing business practices, not corporatism or for that matter fascism.  Wherein such companies have become so powerful, so large, so commanding, so environmentally toxic that the free markets can no longer resist avoiding them, as they have established themselves as one of the few only options that remain and they know it.




> AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE is the culprit here, primarily aggressive violence of the state, which is much greater than the aggressive violence of corporations.


I disagree, for example, even though there is a Walmart on every other city-block I do not shop there any longer, I have not been inside of one since 2007; however, Walmart does not threaten me with aggression or violence.  I eat organic, and soft drink companies, for example, do not come to my home and demand that I purchase a 12-pack or else there is going to be trouble.

While on the other hand there are exceptions to be noted, such as Monsanto who regularly turn to the government to provide it unyielding aid and comfort against both farmers and seed cleaners.

Hence, the primary culprit here is corporate greed.  And without a governing body to step in and smack their hands away from the proverbial cookie jar every once in a while, they will steadily get only worse, while realizing more and more power throughout society.

For example, without government intervention there would be absolutely nothing other than arranging buying prices to prevent Google-Walmart-Monsanto-Xfinity-Apple-Chase-Xe from teaming up and buying out the whole continent of North America, establishing a corporate military, and presuming national command as a brand new classification of oligarchy government intend of waging strategic advantage of the then so-called “free markets” to their favor in every way, while they ascend themselves as man-kings above society.




> If by “taxation” you mean public taxation of private property, then your statement is an oxymoron (self-contradiction). You are saying: “And without a form of government and a system of INJUSTICE and LEGALIZED PLUNDER thus enabling it to properly function there can be no justice.” That is an oxymoron. You are contradicting yourself.


Really now, is that what I had wrote… OK, I just double checked and it was not.  You must be confusing me with someone else.




> You cannot insure justice with injustice.


Justice is a process.  Justice like freedom is not free, somebody has to pay the cost of enforcing justice; such is usually achieved with the revenue collected through various methods of taxation levied upon the populace.

The only type of justice that costs nothing is known as mob-rule, plundering, or lynching; in following Hammurabi’s mantra of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.




> JUSTICE, i.e. Free Market, is the ONLY viable, practical system that CAN ever exist. It will not be perfect, because men are imperfect, but it will be MUCH more perfect than the institutionalized injustice we have now.


Once more, justice is one thing entirely unrelated to what is the free market.  You are addressing two entirely distinctive concepts as if they were synonymous.

There is no factual basis to substantiate such an opinion.  However, we need only to reflect upon our current system in an effort to deduce that such would simply just not the case.  Being that the very same greed, self-interest, bloodlust, and authoritarianism would transfer over under anarchism, although would now become unchecked through the absence of an organized, responsible power structure.




> If men are not “evolved” enough to govern themselves, what makes you think they are evolved enough to govern others? By creating an unjust monopoly of force, you multiply the woes of wicked men, who are thus placed in a position of much greater power so they can do much greater damage. How is that preferable? Your position is self-contradictory again.


I shall prefer to allow our Founding Fathers speak on this closing point for me:

“_In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution._” — Thomas Jefferson

“[_T_]_o preserve the republican form and principles of our Constitution and cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [the Constitution] has established...  are the two sheet anchors of our Union.  If driven from either, we shall be in danger of foundering._” — Thomas Jefferson

“_If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify._” — Alexander Hamilton

“_As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard.  This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct.  It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State Constitution, as well as all others._” — Alexander Hamilton

“[_D_]_emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few._” — John Adams

“_We, the People, are the rightful masters of both the Congress and the Courts.  Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who have perverted it._” — Abraham Lincoln


And finally, there is clear distinction to be observed between what is taxation and what is theft, it was stipulated for at the close of the Fifth Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, stating that: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> The difference between you and me is that I believe in self-ownership, Private Property, Justice, and Non-Aggression, and you do not.
> 
> Well to me, that sounds like a recipe that would definitely pave the pathway for society to devolve into one of survival of the fittest, while only encouraging yet more thuggish gang-sprawl.


 How exactly Non-aggression equals thuggish gang-sprawl? They are the exact opposites of each other. Your logic is missing a screw. 



> And thank you for telling me what it is that I believe in, because I have been wondering about that all of my life.


  You believe in aggressive violence, which is the definition of evil, and you do not have the courage or honesty to face the fact. 



> when wages are garnished it is an act of authority that must be wholly justified under codified public law and then procedurally certified prior to action


  You are seduced by a lie that when something is: an act of authority  under codified public law and then procedurally certified prior to action it must be just. 

  You are wrong. Nazis had concentration camps running by an act of authority  under codified public law and then procedurally certified prior to action yet it did not make it just, or moral or good. It was pure evil.

  What is the principle here? Justice. What is Justice? Non-violation of Private Property. Nothing more, nothing less. When public law violates justice it is no law at all. It is evil, no matter who procedurally certified it. Learn this.



> A proper system of governance could never function under NAP/ZAP


  That is a contradiction of terms. NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) is the definition of Justice, therefore proper system of governance IS NAP. Therefore, your statement is equivalent to: _A proper system of governance could never function under JUSTICE._ That is an oxymoron.



> we tried something similar to that already as the Confederate States of America, and it was largely a failure.


  Inasmuch as Justice (i.e. NAP) was tried anywhere it produced prosperity. But inasmuch it was violated, including in Confederate  States it produced economic ruin and tyranny. The solution, therefore, is MORE justice, not less.  

  Justice = NAP. They are one and the same.




> So the mafia possesses a legitimate moral superiority for its crimes, while a government functioning under a compact does not?


  I said nothing of the sort. ANYONE who practices aggressive violence is evil, be it mafia or government, or a thug on the street. There is exactly zero difference in principle, except government is more destructive at it than all the mafia and street thugs put together and multiplied by a thousand. In the last century alone, governments were responsible for over 260,000,000 death, EXCLUDING combat, and killing THEIR OWN people (and not those of a neighboring country).  Thus governments that violate NAP present far greater danger to their own people, than to the foreigners. 



> And it was the Nuremberg trials that made the Nazis somewhat accountable by their actions and crimes against humanity.


  Delightful. What about US government murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, and poisoning millions of yet unborn with radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially at the time when Japan sought for any opportunity to surrender and end the war? So at Nurnberg victorious war criminals were judging defeated war criminals. These victorious war criminals were then spraying women and children in Vietnam with napalm and agent orange, and women and children in Iraq with white phosphorous and depleted uranium, causing death and birth defects on the scale unseen in that country. 



> So then in the case of a private security force, I can simply tort another individual and then resist their attempts to confront me, to avoid them holding me accountable for my wrongful act against another, and then I am just free to go and be left alone?


  Not at all! Free market can deliver justice and security much more efficiently, and infinitely more justly than the unjust by definition, and legendarily inefficient, cumbersome and expensive (think half of your income) government law enforcement supported by aggressive violence of taxation. 

  Now, defensive violence is justified violence. Defensive violence is defined as the use of EQUAL force to offset/neutralize the aggression of another. Defensive violence is a logical part of NAP, because it cancels out (nullifies) Aggressive violence. Free market can deliver justice enforcement in many ways. Here is just one example:





  Many other ways are possible that are in harmony with principles of justice, and Free Market will implement the most efficient and economical solution. 



> Additionally, are you unaware of the blatant acts of criminality that Blackwater/Xe and Wackenhut employees are alleged of committing and that such would only become worse without the intervention of a criminal justice system and the procedural mandates of government that are part and parcel to our system of governance?


  It is aggressive violence of the government that shields criminals like Black Water from justice. Governments aggressive violence makes the crimes of private actors worse. Why? Because you cannot expect anything else from wholesale organized evil and injustice, i.e. organized aggressive violence of taxation.  It is in principle, impossible to build justice on foundation of injustice. 



> without the establishing of organized authority or as you call it evil force, such rights or privileges cannot ever be assured).


  That is an oxymoron, and self-contradiction. Evil is a violation of NAP. You cannot, in principle,  assure rights or privileges by violating them. 

  NAP is nothing more or less than justice itself.



> It should be realized that laissez-faire does involve the prudent use of regulating through government;  ensuring that both the environment and its populace remain unharmed in the process.


  The only regulation that has any right to exist is the regulation of Justice. NAP is justice. Free market has much stricter regulations than the government, because government, through OCEA, EPA and FDA permits pollution of the environment and food, while Free Market forbids it. Why? Because under Justice, i.e. Free Market, you have no right whatsoever to pollute your neighbors property. Not at all. 
  That is the difference.  



> there is no way to secure such rights or privileges without either (1) government and taxation, (2) placing yourself as the ultimate aggressor in the enforcement of violence to met those ends, or (3) revisioning all of humanity into a utopia of altruism.
>   Your points (1), (2), and (3) are completely impractical, unnecessary, and self-contradictory.
>   Really, how is that exactly? From my point of view your reply is left rather unsubstantiated.


 (1)    You cannot secure rights by destroying them; therefore you cannot prevent plunder and aggressive violence by legalizing them (in the form of taxation, which is nothing more than wholesale aggressive violence and organized and legalized plunder).
(2)    You cannot enforce NAP by violating it. So (2) is forbidden under NAP.
(3)    Revising all of humanity is impractical and unnecessary. All we need is justice, i.e. NAP. Justice is the ONLY thing that can ever work.



> Correct, I cannot tax another for any reason, whatsoever, as I am not the government.
> 
> However, you may delegate your property to another party, third-party or otherwise, it is called a contract amongst consenting adults (i.e., a social contract).
> 
> As an individual I can arrange a binding agreement amongst my neighbors, so long as they are all in agreement to the terms.
> 
> Americas social contract may be found within our U.S. Constitution and its Amendments. Pretending that these legal documents are nonexistent is simply to avoid reality.


  As you correctly pointed out, for a contract to be valid, there must be explicit consent to the terms of the contract by all the individuals involved. 

  U.S. Constitution was signed by people long dead. Even at the time of its signing, MOST of the population did NOT give their INDIVIDUAL and direct consent to it. Neither most of the people who now live. I did not consent to legalized plunder. I did not consent to aggressive violence and injustice of taxation, neither most of the people I know INDIVIDUALLY consented to it. Therefore, since there is NO voluntary consent, there is no contract. 

To deny this is to deny basic logic, and to deny reality. 

  The only social contract that requires no consent is the contract of justice. 

  Why? Because you do not need anyones consent as to what to do with YOUR own property. JUSTICE cannot be annulled by any number of people, dead or alive. Taxation clauses of the US Constitution are blatant violations of JUSTICE, and as the gross injustice of slavery was removed from the Constitution (sadly and unnecessarily by the shedding of much blood, I might add), so must the gross injustice of taxation be removed, if this Nation and the Constitution itself, are to survive and prosper.  

  Justice is no play thing. 

  Constitution must unavoidably die if it does not purge itself from all injustice. The abomination of slavery was already removed from it. The abomination of taxation is next. 

  If it is not done, the Constitution, and the country with it, will unavoidably self-destruct. These are the choices, because that is the nature of justice. You cannot destroy justice with any document or device whatsoever, you can only destroy yourself against justice, because Justice is as eternal as God Himself. And you cannot prevail against God. Learn this.



> No, not at all, for it was only for an organized society (i.e., the authority of a governing body) that provided you with the means of achieving your personal financial growth. For example, you may have caught a ton of seafood to sell to local stores and restaurants, but they were not yours, you did not make them, and yet you took them to use in order to meet your own self-serving needs, while society as a whole permitted for you to do so. The same is to be stated when mining natural resources, such as precious metals, coal, crude oil, logging, hunting game, potable water tables, etc.; while, such objects of desire may have originated on the very land that you own, they are finite and mutually beneficial to the whole of society and its surrounding ecosystem.


  Now I know you are a socialist. You just dont have the integrity to admit it. You have no idea what Private Property is. You do not understand that my property is beneficial to the whole of society only as part of VOLUNTARY transactions (gifts, trades, exchange), and your platitudes about benefits to the whole of society are no license for legalized plunder, theft and injustice. 
  The society must unavoidably self-destruct if Private Property, i.e. Justice is not held sacred as the Law of God himself, who said: Thou shall not steal.  Learn this much at least, you closet socialist.



> This further includes statutory protections afforded to you from patent and copyright infringement against those many inventions or self-help books that you have written over the span of your life.


  Patents and copyrights as currently enforced by government are violations of justice. See more here: Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents.




> Free Market can deliver security services much more economically (without confiscating over half of your income), and infinitely more justly than the inherently unjust government forced monopoly of law enforcement.
> Really, how so, being that there is no recognizablejustsystem of governmental authority to ratify and enforce laws upon the populace?


  Justice is universal and well recognize. Justice is nothing more or less than Non-Violation of Private Property. 
  That is the Natural Law of Justice. It is NOT subject to the opinions of politicians any more than the laws of mathematics or of mechanics are subject to their opinions. These laws are independent of your opinion of them. They are absolute. If you square yourself with this Natural Law of Justice, you will have peace and prosperity. If you violate it you will have tyranny, and eventual self-destruction of the society. So you are wrong. 

  The origin of justice is in the origin of man. It comes from God, and is the fundamental attribute of all existence. In fact it is the governing Law of the Universe. Justice ALWAYS takes its course. NO ONE can escape its grasp any more than they can escape self. (You cannot run from yourself. It is impossible.)



> So you reject justice by government involvement that functions under the black letter of law,


  I reject justice by the government supported by aggressive violence of legalized plunder, because it is an oxymoron, self-contradiction, and no justice at all.



> while advocating for justice to be privatized under a vague and ambiguous presumption of ethical values and morality, which inevitably will be valued and perceived differently from one person to the next, from one locale to the next


  There is nothing vague and ambiguous about justice. Its laws are absolute like the laws of mathematics. The task is to discover them and live accordingly.

  In any case, it is infinitely better than the wickedness and injustice codified into law right now, and enforced upon the entire country! What we have now is truly an abomination, and it cannot be otherwise because it is built on foundation of evil, that is aggressive violence of taxation, which is evil.



> So truly, in your view justice only become tainted or enforced and evil when commenced by the government, yet remains pristine when provided through the security forces of free markets?


  Free Markets are only as perfect as the people comprising them, but at least the principle of Free Market is the correct one. It is the principle of Justice, that is the principle of Non-Aggression.

  On the other hand, the government supported by aggressive violence of taxation is INHERENTLY unjust. And it can never be anything but unjust, because it is built on the foundation of INJUSTICE. Injustice is defined as nothing more or less than aggressive violence, the opposite of Non-Aggression. 

  So one is built on perfectly just principle, and the other is built on perfectly UNJUST principle.
  It is that simple.




> Regardless, the free markets already have a privatized form of security, they are call armed/unarmed security guards


  Unfortunately we do not have Justice now (or we are violating it), and thus we do NOT have a Free Market now. It is distorted by aggressive violence of government, which is unjust.



> It is a moral responsibility, that is fulfilled by you being a good and productive person interacting with others on VOLUNTARY/non-coercive, and thus mutually beneficial basis. This is how you benefit the society, and not by destroying Liberty and therefore JUSTICE via legalized plunder and aggressive violence.
> 
>   You know, I have to ponder is it merely coincidental that nearly every person that I have ever come across holding such beliefs all have one thing in common; they are vagabonds and live their lives doing whatever it is that they want, whenever they want, without any real care or regard to others (be it jaywalking, trespassing, stealing or shoplifting, urinating in public, littering, drinking in public, loitering, or whatever else).


  Fascinating. I can say the same thing about you. But how does that effect the TRUTH of the principles of Justice we are discussing? Where is your reason? You give no reason to disprove my point. Therefore, you are figuratively urinating in public on reason. And this urination is the sum total of your argument. Not very convincing at all!



> In the final analysis it is JUSTICE that you are rebelling against. The ancient commandment of God: Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not kill. This is what you are rebelling against. This is not how you build a good, free, moral, and just society! Not at all!
> 
> It is odd that you turn to religious to further substantiate your points, being that religion is itself one of the oldest constructs of governingalso noting that empirically, religion has resulted in devising the most chaotic, hostile, and uncertain means of justifying rule over others.


  There is nothing wrong with just government, and there is nothing wrong with true religion. Both are in perfect harmony. My religion is the religion of justice. It is scientifically and morally sound as the pillars of eternity. True science, true religion, and true government are one and the same. It is all TRUTH.

  Only false religions, false government, and false science are self-contradictory and are the source of chaos, division, and tyranny.

  False is the opposite of True.



> So when people do not follow such proclaimed moral edicts it is for governments to step in for the purposes of retaining and reassuring the publics order.


  As I already said, it is IMPOSSIBLE to establish justice with injustice. It is a self-contradiction, and therefore false.



> As if by taking away government people will not ever again murder, rape, rob, fight, steal, accuse, or commit acts of arson, fraud, negligence, molestation, incest, infidelity, tort, libel, slander, etc. Historically, there is nothing to prove this to be factual.


  I never said that human implementation of Free Market, i.e. Justice will be free from these vices, because men are imperfect. However, all these abominations are made far worse by government that practices wholesale aggressive violence, which is nothing more than organized evil, by definition. Aggressive violence is the definition of evil.

  Free Market is infinitely more suited to perfect human nature, than the unjust, by definition, aggressive violence of the state. All these vices are multiplied through the organized evil of the aggressive violence and injustice of the state.

  A state devoid of aggressive violence would be just. The proper role of such state is nothing more or less than to govern public property according to justice. See *The Fundamental Principles of Liberty*.



> Without a procedure of laws to be followed and enforced, either a stronger person or larger group can exert the personal authority of their desires or wills over the vested ownership of your property and without any legal recourse being necessary or repercussion to themselves.


  Right. So I am all for just laws being enforce. Just laws are those that do not violate the Non-Aggression Principle. Thats what Justice is. 

  It is NAP.



> Remember, it just so happens that such authority has been provided for by our social compact; otherwise, who cares if it is just authority or not, for justice devolves to being purely relative; for example, I say it was just for me to steal and sell your horse, yet you would argue that what I did was unjust,


  Justice is not relative, it is absolute, like math. 2 + 2 = 4 is absolute. It is not subject to opinions. 



> either way according to what you are proposing it matters not, because you no longer have any recourse that will provide you with justice. Your notion was intend on me always opting to perpetually take the morally proper action and whenever I dare not to, it simply resolves itself to your personal loss and my personal gain.


  Wrong. In a Free Market I can hire a reputable Sheriff, or a third party, who will restore my horse to me. 

  How is that different from the present government? 

  It is different because I VOLUNTARILY hire the provider of security, and I chose the one that provides the best service for the price. Justice is not violated in such transaction, because it is VOLUNTARY. Present government, on the other hand, FORCES me to accept its services at the point of a gun, with me having no say in the matter, plus it decides how much I will pay for the service. It is nothing more than mafia-style protection racket. It is a fraud. A violation of Justice. It is, in fact, EVIL, because it is based on AGGRESSIVE violence (which is the definition of evil). 

  See the difference? Aggressive violence is the difference. Justice is the difference.
  Free Market (devoid of Aggressive violence) is the ONLY just means of providing security (or any product for that matter). Because aggressive violence is ALWAYS wrong.



> It is a general principle. Government is NOT excluded from it. In fact, it has been the root of all social evil, to assume that government is somehow exempt from this law of JUSTICE.
> 
> Again, it is not that government is exempt from justice, it is that exacting provisions of state and individual sovereignty has been stipulated within our social compact, so as to aspire a more perfect union of states and federalism.


  You cannot build a more perfect union on INJUSTICE. 

  It cannot be done. 

  It is the difference between love and rape. Call it federalism or what you will, if it violates the NAP, it is UNJUST, immoral, and EVIL.



> Government is composed of people entrusted to serve the collective needs of an individualistic society; they are however, not going to do so for free. As the saying goes: you get what you pay for.


  Exactly. Hence the need for a Free Market. Free Market (free from aggressive violence, especially free from  institutionalized aggressive violence) provides products and services superior to immoral by definition, government forced monopoly, which drives the price up, and quality down, and above all that is fundamentally unjust.



> There are various methods of taxation, many of which are entirely voluntary.


  Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms. Taxation, by definition, is not voluntary.



> taxes are intended to take money away from you, not to provide you with additional monies.


  Not unless YOU are doing the taxing! Government gets additional monies by taxation. Government derives income by taxing you.

  However, if you define tax as public taxation of private property, then tax is immoral and unjust. Why? Because it violates the NAP.

  I defined tax as extracting wealth from others who use your property. It is synonymous with a user fee, or with rent. I thought it was  a more general definition of the term. Hence, I said, you can only justly tax the things you OWN, and nothing else, and you extract the tax from the people who use the things you own.



> You are missing the differentiation between what comprises an individual person and what comprises a governmental body.


  You are missing the fact that a government body cannot have any just authority, except that which has been delegated to it by individuals comprising it. And since no one can delegate an authority he does not have, the government cannot justly do to individual or his property, except what you and I, INDIVIDUALLY, have a right to do. If you, INDIVIDUALLY, have no right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, you cannot ask your government to do it in your behalf, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.



> authority is  based upon our social contractour Nations most sacred and fundamental law.


  Already answered that. But to repeat: according to basic logic, there can be no contract without INDIVIDUAL and explicit consent. Since no such explicit and individual consent exists, there is no contract, social or otherwise. To deny that is to deny logic and reality.



> Have you perhaps, considered, expatriating (it would seem that doing so would suit you well)?


  Why should I leave and forsake my property? Why dont YOU leave, since you do not believe in Justice or Private Property? Why dont YOU leave? 

  Do you get my point?



> What you call anarchism is nothing more than JUSTICE itself. JUSTICE is nothing more than non-aggression. It implies the right to use EQUAL force to offset/neutralize the aggression of another against your property.
> 
> No, anarchism is the notion of voluntary compliance within an individually autonomous societyand at its best it is a complete pipedream.


 Voluntary compliance is the definition of non-aggression, and therefore you just confirmed my definition. And it is not a complete pipedream, any more than Justice itself being a complete pipedream. If you do not believe in Justice, then come out and say that, and expose yourself for the fraud that you are. Otherwise, admit that Justice, Non-Aggression, and Free-Market (or as you call it anarchism/ anarcho-capitalism) are one and the same.



> Moreover, it is just an oddity that anarchists (even since their advent in the late 1800), being so intend upon seeking only non-aggression and justice and the like, are primarily viewed throughout society as being violent trouble makersthat advocate violent revolution to meet their end objectives?


  It is not that odd, if you consider that the thieves writ large, a.k.a. the present government, consider the ideas of Non-Aggression a threat to their plunder, because these true principles expose the aggressive violence of the state that is hiding behind nice sounding and lying phrases such as social justice, social security, spreading democracy and other violent frauds. Not surprising at all. Truth is treason in the empire of lies, and is always ridiculed, slandered and violently opposed by tyrants, murders and thieves.

  Also the problem is in the dual definition of the term anarchy itself. 
  It has two OPPOSITE meanings, which the critics seek to slyly exploit to confuse the uneducated:
1) chaos, or the law of the jungle, and 
  2) society built on non-aggression, that is voluntary associations between people. 
As you can see the definitions (1) and (2) are in direct opposition to each other, which is not new to English language. (The word cleave would be another example of one word meaning opposite things, depending on the context).

  This is why I never call myself anarchist, to avoid the sly and lying exploitation of the opposite meanings. I call myself a follower of Justice and Liberty as defined by the Non-Aggression Principle. That is much harder to twist and lie about.



> Here is a brain buster to ponder, when anarchists demonstrate and smash out shop windows or set vehicles and dumpsters on fire is that what they are doing, i.e., using equal force to offset or neutralize aggression against the property of another?


  These are anarchists in definition (1). Most often they are provocateurs sent by the government itself to frame anarchists (definition 2) in a bad and lying light. Anarcho-capitalists, by definition, are the followers of the Non-Aggression principle. They would never participate in such behavior because it is the very opposite of the core of their principles. 



> Tis hypocrisy poring over?


  No, it is tyrants lying, that I just described, poring over. And you sing the song of the liars. I wonder why? Are you getting paid by them?



> I would argue that personal choice, freedom of thought, expression, and feeling are the only practical things to exist.


  I would agree with that. These are the principles of self-ownership. And personal choice implies the right of property ownership, otherwise you have nothing to choose with.



> Justice is a simply a means to bring resolution against a wrong committed against another or their property.


  That is exactly my definition too, because wrong committed against another or their property is the same as saying aggressive violence and is the opposite of NAP!  See, we agree! 



> The most effective way to obtain true justice is through a structured, organized societyand hence governance.


  Fine, I agree, as long as such governance does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle, otherwise it would be an oxymoron: _The most effective way to obtain justice is to violate it._ Which would be a self-contradiction, because violation of NAP is the very definition of injustice, even according to you!



> Again prudent taxation is neither theft nor plunder. Sure using such descriptive words sounds flashy and all, but in reality that is to misuse those words outside of their intended definitions.


  If you define taxation as public taxation of private property, then it is never prudent any more than rape is prudent. It is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction, because definition of plunder is transferring the property of one, to whom it rightly belongs, to another, to whom it does not belong, all against the owners will. That is exactly the definition of such taxation. 

  The only prudent taxation by public representative government, a taxation that would not violate the laws of justice is the taxation of Public property, in the form of public property user fees. It would be just provided that:
a)      Majority of the users agree,
b)      Everyone is treated equally, (because all have equal claim of ownership in it), and 
c)       The property of no one is violated in the process. 



> Conveniently, you overlook the free rider problem associated with NAP/ZAP.


  Not really. If a businessman beautified the front of his store and planted trees that give nice shade to people who come upon his property to brows or shop, are they free riders? Perhaps, but it is justified by the businessmens self-interest, because it has the net effect of increasing his sales and therefore profits. If it is a free rider so be it. It does not violate the laws of justice at all. Would you force charge passersby because you beatified the exterior of your shop they are passing by? No! Because that would be unjust!



> Moreover, why is only a majority of the people required to consent to this means of taxation [of public property]; meaning that neither is this in-line with the theorems of NAP/ZAP, only a unanimous agreement would be.


  Not really. You are talking about joint ownership of property. If the property is indivisible, then the person or group with the most shares of control in it would rightly control it, provided that they provided a just compensation to the dissenting minority. That would be just.



> free markets are simply those that are permitted to function economically without being burdened by governing bodies; such does not preclude governing regulations to ensure such things as the safety of both the public and a businesss employees, the preservation of the environment, or prudent taxation to generate a reasonable sum of revenue.


  Another oxymoron: First you say free markets are  those  permitted to function  without being burdened by governing bodies, and then you contradict yourself with governing regulations and prudent taxation [read prudent plunder, because taxation IS plunder, by the strictest definition of the term]. 

  As I said before, Free Market regulations are much more stringent than present government regulations, because no one is allowed to violate his neighbors property in safety or environment. Stop contradicting yourself! Self-contradiction is the definition of falsehood. And you embrace self-contradictions almost in EVERY sentence!



> Justice is a concern entirely distinctive from free markets.


  Not really. Justice is DEFINED as Non-Aggression. And Non-Aggression is the defining feature of Free Market. So you are wrong.



> Upon exactly what legal authority would they [private security forces] operate?


  The authority of Private Property. 

  You have the right to protect your own property, and therefore you can rightly delegate that authority to a third party and hire it to protect your property. It is all within the rights of Private Property, and the right of contract that stems from Private Property, i.e. you can do with your own as you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.




> Why would a private security force not violate justice, yet bona fide law enforcement personnel do?


  Because you VOLUNTARILY contract and hire the security force to protect your property which is perfectly within your rights, and the security force has no right to FORCE its services upon you. 

  On the other hand the bona fide law enforcement personnel supported by aggressive violence of taxation are violating your property, FORCING you to pay for the service whether you want it or not, plus on top of that, they determine the price you are going to pay for their service and you have no right to refuse it under threat of lethal violence if you resist it enough. Mafia-style protection racket comes to mind. And yes, it is a blatant violation of Private Property, and of Justice, because it is based on Aggressive violence (which is the definition of evil).

  That is the difference. Thanks for the question.



> there would be nothing in law for them to enforce, so one could not claim or discern if they acted appropriately or inappropriately.


  Wrong. There is but ONE law that matters. The Universal Law of Justice, which is simply Non-Violation of Private Property. 



> Free market will have justice enforcement much BETTER than the unjust, by definition, government forced protection racket.
> 
>   More seriously though, there is nothing reality based to substantiate such a statement. Additionally, would you ever actually want to be confronted by Blackwater/Xe or Wackenhut mercenaries, err employees? Personally, I know that I would not.


  First of all you are wrong. There are private detectives, private mediation, and private security forces already. It all exists and in principle does not violate the laws of justice (whereas tax supported protection racket does violate justice).

  Secondly, if Blackwater was not protected from the demands of justice by the aggressive violence of the state, in a Free Market, another security agency could be hired to bring them to justice; in addition, Blackwater itself would lose reputation and customers if it was known that they rob, plunder and violate justice. It would be bad for business for these TWO significant reasons. As it is, though, Blackwater gets paid from tax revenues that the government collects at a point of a gun, AND the governments shields Blackwater from the demands of justice. Thus, through its aggressive violence the government creates the hideous monster known as Blackwater, whereas Free Market strongly discourages it. Once again, aggressive violence of the state magnifies all the evils of human nature, while Free Market minimizes them.



> Free markets could truly care less about their consumerstheir sole concern is invested in appeasing their share-holders.


  Not really. In a Free Market you cannot appease share-holders, unless you satisfy the consumers, because otherwise there would be no profits to appease share-holders with. In present corporatism, though, the reverse is true. You can appease your share-holders because the corporations get paid by tax money collected by the government at the point of a gun. So, there is no incentive to satisfy the consumers, (unless that consumer is the criminal government which finances its crimes at the point of a gun via taxation).

  Thus again, it is governments aggressive violence that distorts the markets and magnifies evil in the corporations practically at every turn, because it is built on evil (i.e. aggressive violence).



> What about companies that import hazard laced items from other nations, such as items that use lead in paint, asbestos, melamine in imported milk, foaming agents in the McNuggets, meat broth in vegan french-fries, etc?


  It is EPA and FDA that LEGALIZES GMOs, aspartame and poisons in the foods and products, creating false sense of security in the consumers, and shields the guilty corporations from the demands of justice. In a free market it would not be so. If you harm someone, and it can be proven, you become subject to the demands of justice.



> Think cell-phone or wireless device companies care about your safety or the damage they are inflicting upon the environment or insects.


  The same thing as above. Just substitute FCC.



> Are drug and vaccine companies are going to be completely truthful with either their customers or those they do their initial testing on (e.g., Bayer, H5N1 testing, HPV vaccinations, etc.)?


  Funny you should say this, because Congress with the blessing of Supreme Court passed laws preventing litigation against vaccine producers. Which again proves my point. Governments aggressive violence shields guilty corporations from the demands of Justice, i.e. demands of the Free Market.



> Sure, while I might have no right to intrude upon another, without an organized system of government, what exactly is there to stop me? Nothing, simply for in the end it would come down a combination of peer pressure, survival of the fittest, and gang mentality.


  Wrong. There will be an organized system of private competing security firms, whose revenues and survival will depend on how well they will provide the service of justice enforcement.



> You are seemingly ignoring the ominous fact that regardless if the government has made exception for certain companies to harm other or commit otherwise illegal acts, the government still does not compel or force those very companies to what it is that they do,


  Not always. Sometimes it DOES compel them as in the case of NSA spying. But more often it bribes them with the money it steals via aggressive violence of taxation.



> for they do so on their own cognizance; ergo, such companies, and others, would simply continue those very same practices, just without first seeking governmental intervention.


  But they would not be shielded from just retribution by the Free Market, whereas now they are. They are shielded from legal action, and from the loss of revenues, because they get paid from tax money collected by government at the point of a gun. 



> Moreover, you overlook that it is companies that lobby the government for professional favors and not the other way around. Just imagine the possibilities that could be achieved by those same companies sans the need to pay exorbitant sums to lobbyists for the purchasing of necessary votes throughout the legislature?


  It doesnt matter who lobbies who. The whole shenanigans exists because of aggressive violence of the government. So you have proved my point.



> Enron could have just as well occurred even without the aid of government


  Enron could have never have existed in its form and magnitude without the government involvement! 

  Sure, in a Free Market there would still be fraud and aggressive force, but not nearly on the galactic scale that is made possible by the aggressive violence of the state. Just look at the Federal Reserve. That cartel deals and steals in TRILLIONS (more than the Congress itself), and it is all made possible via the aggressive violence of the state which granted it the legalized counterfeiting monopoly, legalizing and monopolizing the immense fraud!



> Sure there is much ridiculousness to statutory interpretation of said antitrust laws by governing bodies; however, that is largely based more upon intentional harassment under the guise of upholding the law, while covertly, the real motivation is to supplement a lobbying companys share of the market.


  You proved my point again. The aggressive violence of the state MAGNIFIES all the flaws of human nature. Why? Because aggressive violence is the definition of evil; and if you plant evil, you will reap more evil until you are completely destroyed! 

  The only solution is to renounce aggressive violence, (i.e. evil) and allow Justice, that is Free Market to operate.



> Undoubtedly, similar antics would take place without government involvement.


  Yes, but on much smaller scale, because Free Market tends to minimize, while aggressive violence of the state to maximize these flaws. It is very logical: evil begets more evil. Justice, that is good, that is Non-Aggression, is the only solution.



> Keeping in mind of course that even with an existing government other alternatives are possible, which are devoid of both corporatism and fascism.


  Yes. But only if you remove the aggressive violence of the state (read taxation).



> Or otherwise, simply prevent by statute greed, intervention, and meddlingincluding preferential lobbyingby those in government and both corporatism and fascism cease to remain.


  If stolen loot of taxation is involved, nothing will help, until the plunder of taxation ends. That is the great engine of corruption that enables all these crimes regardless the statutes.



> Walmart does not threaten me with aggression or violence.


  Right. The government reserves that to itself. Thats why it is evil.



> I eat organic, and soft drink companies, for example, do not come to my home and demand that I purchase a 12-pack or else there is going to be trouble.
> Hence, the culprit here is corporate greed. And without a governing body to step in and smack their hands away from the proverbial cookie jar every once in a while, they will steadily get only worse, while realizing more and more power throughout society.


  You, by refusing to shop there, influence their behavior. As more people demand organic, Walmart will oblige. They already do have some organic products in my Walmart!



> For example, without government intervention there would be absolutely nothing other than arranging buying prices to prevent Google-Walmart-Monsanto-Xfinity-Apple-Chase-Xe from teaming up and buying out the whole continent of North America, establishing a corporate military, and presuming national command as a brand new classification of oligarchy government intend of waging strategic advantage of the then so-called free markets to their favor in every way, while they ascend themselves as man-kings above society.


  While such danger hypothetically exists, though unlikely, it is ALREADY absolute certainty with the current government! Once again, aggressive violence of the state magnifies all the ills and problems of society, while Free Market would have minimized them.



> If by taxation you mean public taxation of private property, then your statement is an oxymoron (self-contradiction). You are saying: And without a form of government and a system of INJUSTICE and LEGALIZED PLUNDER thus enabling it to properly function there can be no justice. That is an oxymoron. You are contradicting yourself.
> 
> Really now, is that what I had wrote OK, I just double checked and it was not. You must be confusing me with someone else.


That is exactly what you wrote, I just substituted true meaning for your nice sounding phrases that belie the stark and sinister reality that: 

taxation = INJUSTICE and LEGALIZED PLUNDER. I could have added Aggressive Violence and Evil. It would be just as correct.




> You cannot insure justice with injustice.
>   Justice like freedom is not free, somebody has to pay the cost of enforcing justice;


  Yes. Just like with the price of milk or bread, Free Market sorts that out nicely, and most importantly JUSTLY.



> such is usually achieved with the revenue collected through various methods of taxation levied upon the populace.


  So you are going to prevent plunder by committing the plunder first, on organized and grand scale? Thats why I said, You cannot insure justice with injustice.



> The only type of justice that costs nothing is known as mob-rule


  Nobody said it costs nothing. As any valuable service people will willingly pay for it in a Free Market, the only just way to deliver any product or service.



> Once more, justice is one thing entirely unrelated to what is the free market. You are addressing two entirely distinctive concepts as if they were synonymous.


  They are synonymous, and I have proven it. One more time:

*Free Market = absence of aggressive violence = Justice.*

  All three are equivalent to each other. Free Market means free from aggressive violence, which in turn is the definition of Justice itself.



> Being that the very same greed, self-interest, bloodlust, and authoritarianism would transfer over under anarchism, although would now become unchecked through the absence of an organized, responsible power structure.


  Free Market is sublimely organized and responsive, much more profoundly than the government. Just consider the coordination it takes to produce a pencil, or a sandwich or a computer, and then deliver it to you! It is truly mind boggling, and it all occurs spontaneously by people being moved with self-interest. That is the majesty of the invisible hand of Free Market in operation. So, there will be organized and responsible power structure. Responsible to who? To the consumers of course. The consumers will pay for the service of security and justice enforcement IF they value the service, and believe me they will value the service because it is essential, and Free Market is the ONLY just way to deliver it!



> I shall prefer to allow our Founding Fathers speak on this closing point for me:


  Good idea! Ill do the same:

_"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801._

_It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people to govern others. Every man is the best, the most responsible, judge of his own advantage.   Lord Acton_

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Added another section to the top post:




> Explanation:
> 
> ALL of the society's problems are made possible or made worse by taxation. 
> 
> Why? 
> 
> What is taxation? Forceful (coercive) extraction of wealth. It is, by  definition, based on aggressive violence, when one taxes the property he  does not own. 
> 
> *Aggressive violence is the definition of evil.* It is the definition of INJUSTICE. It is ALWAYS wrong. It is rooted in violation of private property. 
> ...

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*If Not For Government*

----------


## Danke

> *If Not For Government*


Roads, maybe it doesn't need government.  But eminent domain has been key in developed areas to build roads/freeways.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Roads, maybe it doesn't need government.  But eminent domain has been key in developed areas to build roads/freeways.


"Eminent domain" is a euphemism for theft.

----------

