The "Movement" is a Chimera

[Independent Operator]

Are you stating that you do not think taxes are theft?

 

[Independent Operator]

Wow, there are at least 26 forum members that either don't understand the question, haven't read the Constitution, or are ideological simpletons.
Scary, whatever the excuse.

Are you stating that you do not think taxes are theft?

 

[RP4U&ME]

Clearly not.
Congress has the power to levy taxes.
We the people elect our Congressman, thereby giving 'consent'.
If such basic precepts are up for debate, then yeah, maybe you guys do need your own 'movement'.
And your own island too.

 

[Independent Operator]

You really need to go back and read my post on the law of identity, son. you clearly do not have any clue as to what you are stating. It is intended to educate persons such as yourself. "A" is equal to "A", son.

As i recall blacks were 2/5th a person at that time in 1776. completely immoral but justified by a document.

 

[Independent Operator]

No matter how you justify something it doesn't change its identity.

 

[RP4U&ME]

Your post would be the one with the faulty premises.
And maybe you should look up the definition of 'democracy', son.

 

[torchbearer]

The income tax is theft because it assume the government owns your labor..or owns your self and anything the derives from it efforts. That is theft.

 

[torchbearer]

Also, the government has no rights beyond the rights of its citizens, If its illegal for you to take money by force from your neighbor to give to the needy, its illegal for the government to do the same.

 

[RP4U&ME]

Then say "Income Tax is theft."
Not "Taxation is theft".
Because yes, the right to tax income is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[torchbearer]

Then say "Income Tax is theft."
Not "Taxation is theft".
Because yes, the right to tax income is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

I did say income tax is theft, but also showed how taking money by force to pay someone else is theft also. It's grounded in the principles of property rights. If you don't understand property rights, rights and privileges, everything you speak will be nothing but ignorance.. and will be seen as such by your peers.

 

[FreeTraveler]

This simply isn't true. I can do my work while thinking whatever the heck I want. Laws are now trying to monitor and control what I think. You can't see that thoughts are more fundamental than labor? What are you, a Marxist?

Try "thinking" yourself a lunch sometime. Good luck with that!

...and on that premise, it's ok to be in a prision as long as you have your thoughts?

BTW... call me a Marxist again, and it's pistols at sunrise.

You don't get the point, do you? There are people who believe that the physical integrity of their bodies is more fundamental than taxation.

I can't tell if you're arguing this from the standpoint of the mother, or the child... which is why it should really go ALL the way local; to a decision between the woman and her doctor.

 

[Independent Operator]

Your post would be the one with the faulty premises.
And maybe you should look up the definition of 'democracy', son.

How about instead of being childish you engage in a discussion.

Clearly you stated you think my premise is incorrect. Please explain why. I will be waiting for you scholarly reply as to why you disagree.

I take it you disagree with the "law of identity" then as well. You clearly sound like a very thoughtful person: What are your thought on Aristotle, also while you are at it I'm curious as to you thoughts on Thomas Jefferson's version of Aristotelian Logic and how it applies to the Constitution he penned.

EDIT: also if by "democracy" you mean: you voting to take my wealth - sorry, still theft. A is A

 

[FreeTraveler]

This will all change IF the Doc is not elected. If Doc is not elected you will hear a collective sigh of relief out of DC.

Then the real work will begin (we cant alow that to happen again, that was close):

Lets see for starters. How about classifying sites like youtube "broadcasting corporations" and subjecting them to the same "guidelines" - for the children of course.

How about requiring all blogs to be classified as "print media" subject to all the regulations thereto.

How about taxing each and every ebay transaction - easy to do.

Oh, the things evil government types can think up.

All of these types of things will be tucked away in bills with names such as: "The Omnibus Child Online Protection Against Pornography Act" or some such stupidity.

What?? Your're not against the anti-child porn act are you??

THIS is EXACTLY why I started this discussion. It's wonderful to find out that so many understand this is a battle for the future of America, not just another political campaign.

 

[RP4U&ME]

Civilized societies throughout history have realized the benefit of pooling a portion of their resources together for the greater good. We agree to be taxed.
If you don't like a particular tax, you have representatives and the power of your vote to voice your disapproval. Saying you don't like it and don't want to pay, so you shouldn't have to, is a line of argument not much different than saying you should have the freedom to beat someone up or kill them if you want to.
We all agree on the sanctity of individual liberties, but to live within a society you can only take them so far before your fellow citizens are compelled to put you in check. For the greater good.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Wow, there are at least 26 forum members that either don't understand the question, haven't read the Constitution, or are ideological simpletons.
Scary, whatever the excuse.

Slavery was once allowed by the Constitution too, but that issue has been resolved. What is taxation but part-time slavery? If the fruit of my efforts is to be surrendered, what matter if the recipient be called Master or Civil Servant?

 

[FreeTraveler]

Clearly not.
Congress has the power to levy taxes.
We the people elect our Congressman, thereby giving 'consent'.
If such basic precepts are up for debate, then yeah, maybe you guys do need your own 'movement'.
And your own island too.

So where's your signature on that contract? That's what I thought, mine neither. Consent is not a matter of geography, only statists believe that. Consent is a matter of contractual law.

BTW, everything Hitler did was "legal" on paper too.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Your post would be the one with the faulty premises.
And maybe you should look up the definition of 'democracy', son.

What's the "d" word got to do with it? Last time I looked, we live in a Republic, not a democracy.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep debating the vote." - Ben Franklin

 

[RP4U&ME]

How about instead of being childish you engage in a discussion.

Clearly you stated you think my premise is incorrect. Please explain why. I will be waiting for you scholarly reply as to why you disagree.

EDIT: also if by "democracy" you mean: you voting to take my wealth - sorry, still theft. A is A

OK, so I'm the one being childish?

Your premises are flawed because they assume no consent.
But there is consent. So end of argument.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Civilized societies throughout history have realized the benefit of pooling a portion of their resources together for the greater good. We agree to be taxed.
If you don't like a particular tax, you have representatives and the power of your vote to voice your disapproval. Saying you don't like it and don't want to pay, so you shouldn't have to, is a line of argument not much different than saying you should have the freedom to beat someone up or kill them if you want to.
We all agree on the sanctity of individual liberties, but to live within a society you can only take them so far before your fellow citizens are compelled to put you in check. For the greater good.

Wow... government school? You're so lost I don't even know where to start.

"We agree to be taxed." Don't know about you, kimosabe, but I never gave my consent to any such thing.

Equating tax resistance to murder shows that you have no clue about self-ownership, the sanctity of the individual or the Zero Agression Principle. Watch this little flash animation, then come back and we'll have a reasoned discussion.

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

 

[FreeTraveler]

OK, so I'm the one being childish?

Your premises are flawed because they assume no consent.
But there is consent. So end of argument.

Where's the consent? Because I was born in a particular place I consent to let some gang direct my life? So if you'd been born Jewish in Germany in the 30's, you'd be cool with what the majority decided?