Taxation is Theft

[bripat9643]

If taxes are "always collected by force," because "that is the only way the government can collect them," then you should have no problem in producing a mountain of cases where federal agents armed with guns have attacked a non-compliant taxpayer in an attempt to collect. Strangely, I have yet to see a SINGLE case where this has happened, and you and the rest of your paranoid Internet libertarians have failed to post any evidence of even one such instance occurring, despite my repeated requests for it.

That was funny.

Perhaps you should inform the NYT that this never happened.

3 Businessmen Testify of Armed Raids by I.R.S. - NYTimes.com

Really? 3 alleged incidents from the 90's are all you can come up with? You'll have to do better than that, conspiratard.

If you'd actually bothered to read your article, you'd know that only two of those three raids were said to have involved "armed agents"; in the detailed summaries of the case presented further down in the article, and not just the first few lines of yellow journalism that conspiratards like to read, it never states that the armed agents were with the IRS. It says that IRS agents were there, but they are not stated to have been armed themselves.

The IRS agents were, however, accompanied by drug-sniffing dogs--who were more than likely being handled not by some pencil-pushers from the IRS, but by police officers or federal drug agents. The armed law enforcement officers were there because they were investigating--and I quote from your article--claims of "money laundering, gunrunning and drug dealing", claims at least partially substantiated by the raids turning up "a fairly sizable quantity of marijuana".



"Those accused drug dealers were abused by the government, just ask the one who was caught with drugs in his home, he'll tell you!" It's ridiculous that you think this is what constitutes a logical, level-headed argument. The claims put forth by those suspected criminals were so absurd, U.S. Senators were publicly mocking them.



"Sometimes forced" by the courts? No, the IRS drops cases often and completely voluntarily. It openly acknowledges a massive tax gap--the difference between reported income and actual income, representing the amount of taxes left unlevied and uncollected--in the billions of dollars and routinely writes off uncollected amounts.

Again, when I ask you for more details, you only respond with more evasiveness. Explain your comments more fully. Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

I did explain my comments, you just failed to grasp the explanation.

You did not explain your comments, not in the least. The shitposting you refer to as your "explanation" was limited to "hurrr u hav no proofs i's a anarchist durr lol umad", which explains nothing about your views at all. You, for whatever reason, have yet to deny being an anarchist, and are limiting your statements to legalistic "no proof, lololol" evasions of the topic at hand. So, for the third time: Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

Who ever said that IRS agents with guns would show up to arrest you? The fact is men with guns who work for the government show up to arrest you and take your stuff if you don't pay your taxes. Now you're trying to move the goal posts by insisting they have to be IRS agents. It doesn't matter which agency they work for. The bottom line is they work for the government. Their job is to use guns against people who refuse to pay taxes. I provided you about half a dozen examples already. You want to ignore those because you can't dispute them.

Case closed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In your Opinion -How does that differ greatly from Welfare in the USA - where the masses are more educated . Do you agree with the view of economist Walter Williams

I have no idea who Walter William is, but from the quote you've posted I infer he's self serving and has never walked in the shoes of a recipient of welfare or of a social worker.

It's Walter Williams , and so far as your guess that he "has never walked in the shoes of a recipeint of welfare recipient " sorry pally boy - your dead wrong . He grew up in a housing project {slum / ghetto} along with the Cos {Bill Cosby} both of whom worked their way to the top - and both who started life as welfare recipients.

So far as Self Serving - Sorry to burst your presumptious little self serving bubble again there Pal - but he was a Civil Rights advocate before it was fashionable and has served with many non profit organizations.

So far as your statement "I have no idea who Walter William is" -lol- that being the case - you have no business enagaging in a debate pertaining to economics and taxation alongside people much more educated and informed that you apparently are . Walter Williams is one of the leading economists in America - respected by both left and right wings - oh yes - and guess what Pally boy -it gets even better - just so you can't accuse him of being an "angry old white man" see the image below .

Walter Williams believes that any government imposed obligation for any citizen to help the poor is a sin.

In his America, government would do nothing for the poor. Most Americans reject such nonsense as barbaric.

 

[bripat9643]

I have no idea who Walter William is, but from the quote you've posted I infer he's self serving and has never walked in the shoes of a recipient of welfare or of a social worker.

It's Walter Williams , and so far as your guess that he "has never walked in the shoes of a recipeint of welfare recipient " sorry pally boy - your dead wrong . He grew up in a housing project {slum / ghetto} along with the Cos {Bill Cosby} both of whom worked their way to the top - and both who started life as welfare recipients.

So far as Self Serving - Sorry to burst your presumptious little self serving bubble again there Pal - but he was a Civil Rights advocate before it was fashionable and has served with many non profit organizations.

So far as your statement "I have no idea who Walter William is" -lol- that being the case - you have no business enagaging in a debate pertaining to economics and taxation alongside people much more educated and informed that you apparently are . Walter Williams is one of the leading economists in America - respected by both left and right wings - oh yes - and guess what Pally boy -it gets even better - just so you can't accuse him of being an "angry old white man" see the image below .

Walter Williams believes that any government imposed obligation for any citizen to help the poor is a sin.

In his America, government would do nothing for the poor. Most Americans reject such nonsense as barbaric.

Your belief that no one would help the poor if we didn't have welfare only shows what you know about yourself.

Most Americans belief in charity, not organized looting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's Walter Williams , and so far as your guess that he "has never walked in the shoes of a recipeint of welfare recipient " sorry pally boy - your dead wrong . He grew up in a housing project {slum / ghetto} along with the Cos {Bill Cosby} both of whom worked their way to the top - and both who started life as welfare recipients.

So far as Self Serving - Sorry to burst your presumptious little self serving bubble again there Pal - but he was a Civil Rights advocate before it was fashionable and has served with many non profit organizations.

So far as your statement "I have no idea who Walter William is" -lol- that being the case - you have no business enagaging in a debate pertaining to economics and taxation alongside people much more educated and informed that you apparently are . Walter Williams is one of the leading economists in America - respected by both left and right wings - oh yes - and guess what Pally boy -it gets even better - just so you can't accuse him of being an "angry old white man" see the image below .

Walter Williams believes that any government imposed obligation for any citizen to help the poor is a sin.

In his America, government would do nothing for the poor. Most Americans reject such nonsense as barbaric.

Your belief that no one would help the poor if we didn't have welfare only shows what you know about yourself.

Most Americans belief in charity, not organized looting.

Of course. In your America, UN cargo planes would fly in and drop pallets of rice and beans in the refugee camps.

 

[GreenBean]

I have no idea who Walter William is, but from the quote you've posted I infer he's self serving and has never walked in the shoes of a recipient of welfare or of a social worker.

It's Walter Williams , and so far as your guess that he "has never walked in the shoes of a recipeint of welfare recipient " sorry pally boy - your dead wrong . He grew up in a housing project {slum / ghetto} along with the Cos {Bill Cosby} both of whom worked their way to the top - and both who started life as welfare recipients.

So far as Self Serving - Sorry to burst your presumptious little self serving bubble again there Pal - but he was a Civil Rights advocate before it was fashionable and has served with many non profit organizations.

So far as your statement "I have no idea who Walter William is" -lol- that being the case - you have no business enagaging in a debate pertaining to economics and taxation alongside people much more educated and informed that you apparently are . Walter Williams is one of the leading economists in America - respected by both left and right wings - oh yes - and guess what Pally boy -it gets even better - just so you can't accuse him of being an "angry old white man" see the image below .

Walter Williams believes that any government imposed obligation for any citizen to help the poor is a sin.

In his America, government would do nothing for the poor. Most Americans reject such nonsense as barbaric.

Walter Williams believes that the poor , such as he once was, should be asissted in asissting themselves . He doesn't advocate pandering to laziness, alcoholism, drug addiction and those along for a free ride. He doesn't advocate extorting hard earned money from the workers of this country to feed the gluttony of the wealthy or the laziness of the lackadaisical .


SO far as your ignorant and uninformed statement re : refugee Camps - Under the current Regime , that's about where we are heading - but of course you know it's all George Bushes fault - Right ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once you've rejected democratic government as criminal, because it imposes rules on the governed that are not unanimously agreed to,

then there's really nothing left.

Is that really what you 'taxation is theft' extremists want?

Nothing?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:

1. Why is taxation theft?

2. What is the better alternative to funding government operations?

Taxes are proposed in and approved by legislative bodies, the members of which are elected by and accountable to their constituents. You either voted for the lygyslytyrs who created/raised various taxes, or you have failed to lobby the majority of the populace in your area to support candidates, policies, or referendums that would result in the reduction or abolition of taxation. By continuing to live in an area that levies taxes--be they locally-determined property taxes, statewide sales taxes, or the federal income tax--you are consenting to paying whatever taxes your elected representatives, or their agents in various revenue departments, determine that you owe.

"B-b-but, LM," you are undoubtedly saying, "My representatives aren't accountable to me, so the entire premise of your explanation of how taxation isn't theft is flawed!"

Not so, conservatards. You see, every elected representative in this country IS accountable to his or hyr constituents as a consequence of them being subject to election in the fyrst place--and in some instances, also subject to recall. Whether or not you and your fellow butthurt Wrongpublican voters actually do hold your representatives accountable for their actions is a circumstance irrelevant to the static, unchanging fact that anyone serving as an elected representatives is, by nature of their position, accountable to We the Pyyple.

So when you libertardians whine about "how far this country has fallen" and ask why "them thar taxes hafta be so derned high," remember that you did this. Every bit of it. Your actions (or more accurately for conservatards, your inactions) paved the way for the wyrld we live in today. The next time you're about to decry the American dream as being dead, stop yourself and remember: Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.

So if I and an arbitrarily defined "district" of people vote in the majority that I should take possession of your television it's not theft?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Can you tell me more about your views on taxation? Is there a specific type or percentage of tax that need to be levied in order for a government to not collapse?

I'm afraid that some weaker-mynded posters here might not quite follow us in our deep, intellectual discussion. Can you explain for them, in symple tyrms, why the rule of law is wholly and non-negotiably dependent upon taxation for its survival?

[MENTION=49168]LiberalMedia[/MENTION]
Those taxes which are Necessary and Proper in order for the United States to execute its Constitutional obligations and all other Laws that in are Pursuance to the Constitution thereof. I interpret the Constitution strictly, thus taxes being raised or directed towards Government activities that are not expressly delegated by the Constitution are illegal and should be returned to the taxpayers and the unconstitional program/law abolished or nullified.

Although I do not ever wish to see National Healthcare implemented in the United States, if it was amended directly into the Constitution, by Consent of 3/4 of the States, I would have to recognize it as legitimate as well as the taxes required to support it.

I am a Constitutionalist before I am a Libertarian.

I also think you're mixing up Libertarians and Anarchists. Thomas Paine's Common Sense quite literally spells out the difference between them:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT

A Libertarian agrees with the part highlighted in red; an Anarchist disagrees in a most zealous fashion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's Walter Williams , and so far as your guess that he "has never walked in the shoes of a recipeint of welfare recipient " sorry pally boy - your dead wrong . He grew up in a housing project {slum / ghetto} along with the Cos {Bill Cosby} both of whom worked their way to the top - and both who started life as welfare recipients.

So far as Self Serving - Sorry to burst your presumptious little self serving bubble again there Pal - but he was a Civil Rights advocate before it was fashionable and has served with many non profit organizations.

So far as your statement "I have no idea who Walter William is" -lol- that being the case - you have no business enagaging in a debate pertaining to economics and taxation alongside people much more educated and informed that you apparently are . Walter Williams is one of the leading economists in America - respected by both left and right wings - oh yes - and guess what Pally boy -it gets even better - just so you can't accuse him of being an "angry old white man" see the image below .

Walter Williams believes that any government imposed obligation for any citizen to help the poor is a sin.

In his America, government would do nothing for the poor. Most Americans reject such nonsense as barbaric.

Walter Williams believes that the poor , such as he once was, should be asissted in asissting themselves . He doesn't advocate pandering to laziness, alcoholism, drug addiction and those along for a free ride. He doesn't advocate extorting hard earned money from the workers of this country to feed the gluttony of the wealthy or the laziness of the lackadaisical .

That's not what he says he believes in.

"No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive.”

Those are Williams' own words. That is an absolute rejection of any government program that gives medical aid to anyone. That is call to abolish, for example, Medicaid. Completely.

Walter E. Williams Quotes | Quotation Collection

 

[ChrisL]

Can you tell me more about your views on taxation? Is there a specific type or percentage of tax that need to be levied in order for a government to not collapse?

I'm afraid that some weaker-mynded posters here might not quite follow us in our deep, intellectual discussion. Can you explain for them, in symple tyrms, why the rule of law is wholly and non-negotiably dependent upon taxation for its survival?

Those taxes which are Necessary and Proper in order for the United States to execute its Constitutional obligations and all other Laws that in are Pursuance to the Constitution thereof. I interpret the Constitution strictly, thus taxes being raised or directed towards Government activities that are not expressly delegated by the Constitution are illegal and should be returned to the taxpayers and the unconstitional program/law abolished or nullified.

Although I do not ever wish to see National Healthcare implemented in the United States, if it was amended directly into the Constitution, by Consent of 3/4 of the States, I would have to recognize it as legitimate as well as the taxes required to support it.

I am a Constitutionalist before I am a Libertarian.

I also think you're mixing up Libertarians and Anarchists. Thomas Paine's Common Sense quite literally spells out the difference between them:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT

A Libertarian agrees with the part highlighted in red; an Anarchist disagrees in a most zealous fashion.

Great post, and I couldn't agree more. Most of us aren't against taxes in general, it is how they are being misspent and how greedy our government and politicians have become. It's just disgusting. The fed has become a money-eating monstrosity that has gone far beyond what it's intended responsibilities were meant to be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:

1. Why is taxation theft?

2. What is the better alternative to funding government operations?

Taxes are proposed in and approved by legislative bodies, the members of which are elected by and accountable to their constituents. You either voted for the lygyslytyrs who created/raised various taxes, or you have failed to lobby the majority of the populace in your area to support candidates, policies, or referendums that would result in the reduction or abolition of taxation. By continuing to live in an area that levies taxes--be they locally-determined property taxes, statewide sales taxes, or the federal income tax--you are consenting to paying whatever taxes your elected representatives, or their agents in various revenue departments, determine that you owe.

"B-b-but, LM," you are undoubtedly saying, "My representatives aren't accountable to me, so the entire premise of your explanation of how taxation isn't theft is flawed!"

Not so, conservatards. You see, every elected representative in this country IS accountable to his or hyr constituents as a consequence of them being subject to election in the fyrst place--and in some instances, also subject to recall. Whether or not you and your fellow butthurt Wrongpublican voters actually do hold your representatives accountable for their actions is a circumstance irrelevant to the static, unchanging fact that anyone serving as an elected representatives is, by nature of their position, accountable to We the Pyyple.

So when you libertardians whine about "how far this country has fallen" and ask why "them thar taxes hafta be so derned high," remember that you did this. Every bit of it. Your actions (or more accurately for conservatards, your inactions) paved the way for the wyrld we live in today. The next time you're about to decry the American dream as being dead, stop yourself and remember: Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.

So if I and an arbitrarily defined "district" of people vote in the majority that I should take possession of your television it's not theft?

If it makes you feel better to characterize democratic government as a criminal enterprise, fine.

But you have no better ideas. None, at least that could be democratically implemented.

First of all, to satisfy you in the 'no theft' department, all laws would have to be passed via direct democracy,

and unanimously. You really think that would work to run a country?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:



Taxes are proposed in and approved by legislative bodies, the members of which are elected by and accountable to their constituents. You either voted for the lygyslytyrs who created/raised various taxes, or you have failed to lobby the majority of the populace in your area to support candidates, policies, or referendums that would result in the reduction or abolition of taxation. By continuing to live in an area that levies taxes--be they locally-determined property taxes, statewide sales taxes, or the federal income tax--you are consenting to paying whatever taxes your elected representatives, or their agents in various revenue departments, determine that you owe.

"B-b-but, LM," you are undoubtedly saying, "My representatives aren't accountable to me, so the entire premise of your explanation of how taxation isn't theft is flawed!"

Not so, conservatards. You see, every elected representative in this country IS accountable to his or hyr constituents as a consequence of them being subject to election in the fyrst place--and in some instances, also subject to recall. Whether or not you and your fellow butthurt Wrongpublican voters actually do hold your representatives accountable for their actions is a circumstance irrelevant to the static, unchanging fact that anyone serving as an elected representatives is, by nature of their position, accountable to We the Pyyple.

So when you libertardians whine about "how far this country has fallen" and ask why "them thar taxes hafta be so derned high," remember that you did this. Every bit of it. Your actions (or more accurately for conservatards, your inactions) paved the way for the wyrld we live in today. The next time you're about to decry the American dream as being dead, stop yourself and remember: Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.

So if I and an arbitrarily defined "district" of people vote in the majority that I should take possession of your television it's not theft?

If it makes you feel better to characterize democratic government as a criminal enterprise, fine.

But you have no better ideas. None, at least that could be democratically implemented.

First of all, to satisfy you in the 'no theft' department, all laws would have to be passed via direct democracy,

and unanimously. You really think that would work to run a country?

As I don't see democracy as a good thing in and of itself I'm not particularly worried about my ideas being democratically implemented. The only way for my ideas, at least in the big picture sense, to be implemented is for everyone to simply stop acknowledging the authority of the state. Not a violent revolution which rarely if ever has led to meaningful change, but simply a withering away of the state as more and more people stop believing in it.

As for your straw man direct democracy comment, no, I don't think that would work and have never advocated anything of the sort.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:

1. Why is taxation theft?

2. What is the better alternative to funding government operations?

Taxes are proposed in and approved by legislative bodies, the members of which are elected by and accountable to their constituents. You either voted for the lygyslytyrs who created/raised various taxes, or you have failed to lobby the majority of the populace in your area to support candidates, policies, or referendums that would result in the reduction or abolition of taxation. By continuing to live in an area that levies taxes--be they locally-determined property taxes, statewide sales taxes, or the federal income tax--you are consenting to paying whatever taxes your elected representatives, or their agents in various revenue departments, determine that you owe.

"B-b-but, LM," you are undoubtedly saying, "My representatives aren't accountable to me, so the entire premise of your explanation of how taxation isn't theft is flawed!"

Not so, conservatards. You see, every elected representative in this country IS accountable to his or hyr constituents as a consequence of them being subject to election in the fyrst place--and in some instances, also subject to recall. Whether or not you and your fellow butthurt Wrongpublican voters actually do hold your representatives accountable for their actions is a circumstance irrelevant to the static, unchanging fact that anyone serving as an elected representatives is, by nature of their position, accountable to We the Pyyple.

So when you libertardians whine about "how far this country has fallen" and ask why "them thar taxes hafta be so derned high," remember that you did this. Every bit of it. Your actions (or more accurately for conservatards, your inactions) paved the way for the wyrld we live in today. The next time you're about to decry the American dream as being dead, stop yourself and remember: Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.

It's theft. Stealing doesn't cease to be stealing just because the thief is also the one who gets to write the laws which say it's okay because it's now legal for the government to steal. It's still stealing.

I don't mind some taxes, but the number of different ones we have is ridiculous. Not sure how other countries do it, or if their solutions are better than our's, but I think starting with what's actually fair and sensible makes sense.

Flat tax on income, everyone pays the same percentage. Taxing more because someone earns more is penalizing success.

Let the states figure out what's fair on sales taxes.

But the scores of other taxes are wholly unfair and out-of-control.

 

[bripat9643]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:



Taxes are proposed in and approved by legislative bodies, the members of which are elected by and accountable to their constituents. You either voted for the lygyslytyrs who created/raised various taxes, or you have failed to lobby the majority of the populace in your area to support candidates, policies, or referendums that would result in the reduction or abolition of taxation. By continuing to live in an area that levies taxes--be they locally-determined property taxes, statewide sales taxes, or the federal income tax--you are consenting to paying whatever taxes your elected representatives, or their agents in various revenue departments, determine that you owe.

"B-b-but, LM," you are undoubtedly saying, "My representatives aren't accountable to me, so the entire premise of your explanation of how taxation isn't theft is flawed!"

Not so, conservatards. You see, every elected representative in this country IS accountable to his or hyr constituents as a consequence of them being subject to election in the fyrst place--and in some instances, also subject to recall. Whether or not you and your fellow butthurt Wrongpublican voters actually do hold your representatives accountable for their actions is a circumstance irrelevant to the static, unchanging fact that anyone serving as an elected representatives is, by nature of their position, accountable to We the Pyyple.

So when you libertardians whine about "how far this country has fallen" and ask why "them thar taxes hafta be so derned high," remember that you did this. Every bit of it. Your actions (or more accurately for conservatards, your inactions) paved the way for the wyrld we live in today. The next time you're about to decry the American dream as being dead, stop yourself and remember: Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.

So if I and an arbitrarily defined "district" of people vote in the majority that I should take possession of your television it's not theft?

If it makes you feel better to characterize democratic government as a criminal enterprise, fine.

But you have no better ideas. None, at least that could be democratically implemented.

First of all, to satisfy you in the 'no theft' department, all laws would have to be passed via direct democracy,

and unanimously. You really think that would work to run a country?

Actually, not even "direct democracy" makes taxation moral. Direct democracy is still mob rule. What Hans Hermann Hoppe calls the "private law society" is the only legitimate solution. That means no government, in other words.

 

[bripat9643]

So if I and an arbitrarily defined "district" of people vote in the majority that I should take possession of your television it's not theft?

If it makes you feel better to characterize democratic government as a criminal enterprise, fine.

But you have no better ideas. None, at least that could be democratically implemented.

First of all, to satisfy you in the 'no theft' department, all laws would have to be passed via direct democracy,

and unanimously. You really think that would work to run a country?

As I don't see democracy as a good thing in and of itself I'm not particularly worried about my ideas being democratically implemented. The only way for my ideas, at least in the big picture sense, to be implemented is for everyone to simply stop acknowledging the authority of the state. Not a violent revolution which rarely if ever has led to meaningful change, but simply a withering away of the state as more and more people stop believing in it.

As for your straw man direct democracy comment, no, I don't think that would work and have never advocated anything of the sort.

I think it will be accomplished through secession. Smaller and smaller units of society will secede from their government until each individual property owner is a sovereign entity unto itself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If taxes are "always collected by force," because "that is the only way the government can collect them," then you should have no problem in producing a mountain of cases where federal agents armed with guns have attacked a non-compliant taxpayer in an attempt to collect. Strangely, I have yet to see a SINGLE case where this has happened, and you and the rest of your paranoid Internet libertarians have failed to post any evidence of even one such instance occurring, despite my repeated requests for it.

That was funny.

Perhaps you should inform the NYT that this never happened.

3 Businessmen Testify of Armed Raids by I.R.S. - NYTimes.com

Really? 3 alleged incidents from the 90's are all you can come up with? You'll have to do better than that, conspiratard.

Why? Your claim was that it never happens, and I demonstrated it does.

If you'd actually bothered to read your article, you'd know that only two of those three raids were said to have involved "armed agents"; in the detailed summaries of the case presented further down in the article, and not just the first few lines of yellow journalism that conspiratards like to read, it never states that the armed agents were with the IRS. It says that IRS agents were there, but they are not stated to have been armed themselves.

If you read your post you will see you claimed it never happens.

It does.

You did not explain your comments, not in the least. The shitposting you refer to as your "explanation" was limited to "hurrr u hav no proofs i's a anarchist durr lol umad", which explains nothing about your views at all. You, for whatever reason, have yet to deny being an anarchist, and are limiting your statements to legalistic "no proof, lololol" evasions of the topic at hand. So, for the third time: Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

Funny, I bet you can't find the post where I said that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Walter Williams believes that any government imposed obligation for any citizen to help the poor is a sin.

In his America, government would do nothing for the poor. Most Americans reject such nonsense as barbaric.

Walter Williams believes that the poor , such as he once was, should be asissted in asissting themselves . He doesn't advocate pandering to laziness, alcoholism, drug addiction and those along for a free ride. He doesn't advocate extorting hard earned money from the workers of this country to feed the gluttony of the wealthy or the laziness of the lackadaisical .

That's not what he says he believes in.

"No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive.”

Those are Williams' own words. That is an absolute rejection of any government program that gives medical aid to anyone. That is call to abolish, for example, Medicaid. Completely.

Walter E. Williams Quotes | Quotation Collection

A black man that opposes slavery! Oh my God, lynch him.

Did I sum up your position adequately?

 

[boilermaker55]

With your deep admiration for this man, remember one thing, not everyone tells you the whole story about their lives and how they got where they are.

It's Walter Williams , and so far as your guess that he "has never walked in the shoes of a recipeint of welfare recipient " sorry pally boy - your dead wrong . He grew up in a housing project {slum / ghetto} along with the Cos {Bill Cosby} both of whom worked their way to the top - and both who started life as welfare recipients.

So far as Self Serving - Sorry to burst your presumptious little self serving bubble again there Pal - but he was a Civil Rights advocate before it was fashionable and has served with many non profit organizations.

So far as your statement "I have no idea who Walter William is" -lol- that being the case - you have no business enagaging in a debate pertaining to economics and taxation alongside people much more educated and informed that you apparently are . Walter Williams is one of the leading economists in America - respected by both left and right wings - oh yes - and guess what Pally boy -it gets even better - just so you can't accuse him of being an "angry old white man" see the image below .

Walter Williams believes that any government imposed obligation for any citizen to help the poor is a sin.

In his America, government would do nothing for the poor. Most Americans reject such nonsense as barbaric.

Walter Williams believes that the poor , such as he once was, should be asissted in asissting themselves . He doesn't advocate pandering to laziness, alcoholism, drug addiction and those along for a free ride. He doesn't advocate extorting hard earned money from the workers of this country to feed the gluttony of the wealthy or the laziness of the lackadaisical .


SO far as your ignorant and uninformed statement re : refugee Camps - Under the current Regime , that's about where we are heading - but of course you know it's all George Bushes fault - Right ?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If it makes you feel better to characterize democratic government as a criminal enterprise, fine.

But you have no better ideas. None, at least that could be democratically implemented.

First of all, to satisfy you in the 'no theft' department, all laws would have to be passed via direct democracy,

and unanimously. You really think that would work to run a country?

As I don't see democracy as a good thing in and of itself I'm not particularly worried about my ideas being democratically implemented. The only way for my ideas, at least in the big picture sense, to be implemented is for everyone to simply stop acknowledging the authority of the state. Not a violent revolution which rarely if ever has led to meaningful change, but simply a withering away of the state as more and more people stop believing in it.

As for your straw man direct democracy comment, no, I don't think that would work and have never advocated anything of the sort.

I think it will be accomplished through secession. Smaller and smaller units of society will secede from their government until each individual property owner is a sovereign entity unto itself.

That might be an early manifestation of what I'm talking about.