Taxation Constitutional Amendment

[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.

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.

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.

 

[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.