Taxation Constitutional Amendment

[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 anyreason 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 doneofficially.
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 tosee – 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:

1. ‘Lil Stinker Won… But Government is Winning
2. But Then We’d Have Anarchy!
3. Good People

Read more: http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/08/17/winning-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!