Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[Eric Cartman]

So it's not theft because the government does it? You're serious?

exactly.

Horseshit. That doesn't conform to any moral, ethical or legal definition of "consent."

Most people do consent to paying taxes ... if you don't you are free to leave. Why is that hard to understand?

So corporations can't ever be guilty of theft because no single individual is involved? How about the Mafia?

Have you ever seen a corporation behind bars? Individuals steal and are punished as individuals.

 

[RKMBrown]

Tell us when anyone un-volunteered to pay a modernly applied tax and got away with it.

Please reference and link to all relevant and applicable legal points, authorities and citations.

Go..............

Over half the country pays no federal income tax. All legal like. How? They stop working, reduce the amount they are working...

That's tax avoidance....I can avoid paying fuel taxes by walking or riding a bicycle...Nothing illegal about that.....That still doesn't count insofar as un-volunteering to pay an applicable tax.


That's tax evasion...Being liable for the tax, but taking measures to refuse paying it....Though un-volunteering to pay the tax, it's also clearly illegal.

There is no law against you joining a commune where folks work for each other and exchange no greenbacks.

So far....But that's not germane to the point.

Another example is where folks work for a discount. They get more product for zero bucks no income to report but they get the product. Similar to coupling. Working for benefits is an interesting way to legally get out of paying income tax.

Ibid.

So far, you've failed to point to any instance where anyone can legally go about un-volunteering to pay any tax.

Got anything else?

Let me get this straight. It's impossible to volunteer to pay taxes because they are compulsory and if you don't pay any taxes you are not UN-volunteering you are merely scheming to avoid them. What are you asking for again? You want evidence for a means to refuse to pay taxes? Call your tax lawyer people negotiate their tax bill down every minute of every day in this country. Only fools pay the full bill.

 

[RKMBrown]

tax - definition of tax by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

tax (tks)
n.
1. A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
2. A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.
3. A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain.
tr.v. taxed, tax·ing, tax·es
1. To place a tax on (income, property, or goods).
2. To exact a tax from.
3. Law To assess (court costs, for example).
4. To make difficult or excessive demands upon: a boss who taxed everyone's patience.
5. To make a charge against; accuse: He was taxed with failure to appear on the day appointed.



If the tax is voluntary in that you agreed to it without being imposed upon with the use of force and violence it is no longer a ******* tax, its a contract. You ******* simpleton.

Just because you can shop for a definition that has a term in it for one of the many definitions that does not mean that ALL TAXES FOR ALL TIME MUST BE REQUIRED YOU IDIOT. You know NOTHING OF LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT. You are a BLIND simpleton who merely wishes to scream that the sky is falling and there's no solution because you read a definition of the word tax and that definition say taxes must be required. Read up about voluntary tax systems and then come back to the class when you have a clue.

When the screaming starts, RKMBrown, you have announced you have lost this discussion, which is a shame, because you had been schooling TASB quite convincingly.

I'll use the means for emphasis of my choosing. If you are incapable of reading CAPS as emphasis without hearing screaming in your head... here's your SIGN.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are they safe in their income and possessions if caught getting paid under the table? Or through bartering even? Or not report their income?

You have lost this argument, sir.

Good day.

Do you really think you have to report a coupon as income? Do you really think your child has to report his allowance for cutting the grass? Do you really think you have to pay your wife for sex? ROFL you really are over the top. The easiest solution to compulsory taxation of income is to shelter your income. Sheltering income is a time honored tradition.

How are yo going to barter to pay your mortgage or get the groceries? Barter simply isn't an option in a modern economy.

Yes bartering is an option in this economy. In many ways it's a better option. When I say bartering I mean it in the broader sense. Think families living together again vs. everyone borrowing so they can live alone in big empty houses. Think food cooperatives where the food you eat is your own food and/or food traded with others of you cooperative. It's the next big thing around some parts. It's similar to the share cropping of old. As another example I have some acreage here, I could quickly and easily set up shop with chickens, and a large greenhouse for poison free food. Really the only thing stopping us from disconnecting from the grid and US greenbacks is ourselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

I dont believe building roads is a numerated power. If under interstate commerce, you feel these measures are there "required task" then anything jammed in there over the last 200 years is good to go too.

Anyway, the states were supposed to fund the federal government, not the citizens fund both. Whatever a state, or the fed can not perform because of its lack of "funds", then the private sector is to step in where the service faces actual failure, instead of just bleeding the public of more money.

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

 

[Mac1958]

.

While "discussions" on Libertarianism here usually end up deteriorating into the standard personal insults, name-calling and partisan bullshit, some of them actually include a discussion of the role, depth, breadth and cost of the federal government. A defense of its size and costs versus a defense of dramatically cutting its size and costs. It causes folks to think a bit and not default to childish silliness.

And that's precisely why I like having Libertarians around, regardless of what the partisan lefties and righties think.



.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh, forgot to mention that Ronald Reagan passed the largest amnesty bill in this country's history. You think Glenn Beck ever talks about that? Of course not. His audience is none the wiser. Listen, you can't fault Glenn Beck; he Is the God of morons who don't know history.

This is an evasion of any actual topic not to mention blatantly false. I find it interesting that liberals like yourself feel the need to demand what the ‘likes of Glenn Beck’ actually say. How would you know what he says on his radio station unless you listen to him? If liberals here were to be believed, they would make up his entire listener base.

BTW, Beck often talks about the amnesty Ragan passed. I rarely listen to him at all and yet I know this. You should know this as well as you affirmed your statement as though you knew what you were saying was fact. You would not lie about something like that now, would you? You should worry less about what people you don’t listen to say and more about what you actually say.

 

[RKMBrown]

.

While "discussions" on Libertarianism here usually end up deteriorating into the standard personal insults, name-calling and partisan bullshit, some of them actually include a discussion of the role, depth, breadth and cost of the federal government. A defense of its size and costs versus a defense of dramatically cutting its size and costs. It causes folks to think a bit and not default to childish silliness.

And that's precisely why I like having Libertarians around, regardless of what the partisan lefties and righties think.



.

Eggzactly! A properly structured division of governmental roles would increase the efficiency of our governing system.

For example, welfare is more efficiently provided for by responsible locals who are not seeking to buy votes with the welfare provided. Making welfare a political football in order to buy votes from certain segments of the population is a vial means to destroy this country economically.

As another example, one role of Congress used to be to declare war, the president should not be starting wars. This change in roles has resulted in us being involved in wars all over the planet against what amounts to gangs of drug dealers.

Health care? Hospital rules? really? One of the role of the states has been to manage health care needs of the people of the states. Yet another case where locals are better suited to manage local issues.

Marriage? Really? Why do we need or want any of our governments limiting who can sign a marriage contract? The governments job related to contracts should only be in recording contracts and aiding in disputes between parties.

Retirement Accounts SS/Medicare? The federal government is probably the worst retirement account manager conceivable. A ponzi scheme for retirement funds? wow.

 

[Oddball]

I dont believe building roads is a numerated power. If under interstate commerce, you feel these measures are there "required task" then anything jammed in there over the last 200 years is good to go too.

Anyway, the states were supposed to fund the federal government, not the citizens fund both. Whatever a state, or the fed can not perform because of its lack of "funds", then the private sector is to step in where the service faces actual failure, instead of just bleeding the public of more money.

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

You chide him for not knowing about post roads in Article 1, Section 8, then ask how he (or any other libertarian) would go about funding legitimate federal functions?

Lawful imposts, duties and excises, per Article 1, Section 8....That's how.

 

[RKMBrown]

I dont believe building roads is a numerated power. If under interstate commerce, you feel these measures are there "required task" then anything jammed in there over the last 200 years is good to go too.

Anyway, the states were supposed to fund the federal government, not the citizens fund both. Whatever a state, or the fed can not perform because of its lack of "funds", then the private sector is to step in where the service faces actual failure, instead of just bleeding the public of more money.

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

You chide him for not knowing about post roads in Article 1, Section 8, then ask how he (or any other libertarian) would go about funding legitimate federal functions?

Lawful imposts, duties and excises, per Article 1, Section 8....That's how.

 

[FA_Q2]

I dont believe building roads is a numerated power. If under interstate commerce, you feel these measures are there "required task" then anything jammed in there over the last 200 years is good to go too.

Anyway, the states were supposed to fund the federal government, not the citizens fund both. Whatever a state, or the fed can not perform because of its lack of "funds", then the private sector is to step in where the service faces actual failure, instead of just bleeding the public of more money.

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

You chide him for not knowing about post roads in Article 1, Section 8, then ask how he (or any other libertarian) would go about funding legitimate federal functions?

Lawful imposts, duties and excises, per Article 1, Section 8....That's how.

I have not chided him for anything. I was asking direct questions on how he would intend to fund the government without anything that would be essentially a required tax. You mention ‘lawful imposts, duties and excises’ (of course leaving off the FIRST part of that statement ‘The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes’) but again, this is not much of a real explanation. Income taxes are lawful as well by the way and yet there is a distinct derision against such (or any tax it seems).

I fail to see the difference in a tax, or imposts, duties and excises. All are enforced in the same manner that a tax is enforced and all are extremely unlikely to bring in enough to fund the basic requirements of government. Are we only going to target ‘tax’ on goods that leave or enter this nation? Do you think that will work in today’s global economy? If so, then am I remiss in thinking that you wish to disband NAFTA and the practices that go along with that? See, there is a LOT more to this conversation.

I consider myself a libertarian and I agree that the government has gotten WAY out of control but there are still things that the government must do. Most are outlined in the constitution and most could have been funded 200 years ago through what you described but this world is not the same as it was. The liberals and conservatives seem to have taken that to mean the government needs to grow in power, size and scope. I disagree but that does not mean there are not some basic changes. For instance, a navy is called for in the Constitution but a Navy today is NOT the same force that it used to be. It requires a LOT more resources to maintain an effective navy than it did back then (not taking into account that an air force is even more important now).

I don’t have a particular aversion to an income tax though what we currently have is nothing even remotely like an actual income tax.

Essentially, I am looking for some deeper conversation on this and it seems I am getting resistance and that somewhat surprises me. I am confused about the reluctance to get into a real discussion about what the other posters that consider themselves libertarians actually think here.

 

[Contumacious]

. For instance, a navy is called for in the Constitution but a Navy today is NOT the same force that it used to be. It requires a LOT more resources to maintain an effective navy than it did back then (not taking into account that an air force is even more important now).

.

It was never intended to have a Navy big enough to use it as a trip wire off the coast of Iran or any other disfavored country .

Secondly, an income tax - a graduated direct tax on salaries and wages was NEVER authorized by the Constitution.

.

 

[Oddball]

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

You chide him for not knowing about post roads in Article 1, Section 8, then ask how he (or any other libertarian) would go about funding legitimate federal functions?

Lawful imposts, duties and excises, per Article 1, Section 8....That's how.

I have not chided him for anything. I was asking direct questions on how he would intend to fund the government without anything that would be essentially a required tax. You mention ‘lawful imposts, duties and excises’ (of course leaving off the FIRST part of that statement ‘The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes&#8217 but again, this is not much of a real explanation. Income taxes are lawful as well by the way and yet there is a distinct derision against such (or any tax it seems).

I fail to see the difference in a tax, or imposts, duties and excises. All are enforced in the same manner that a tax is enforced and all are extremely unlikely to bring in enough to fund the basic requirements of government. Are we only going to target ‘tax’ on goods that leave or enter this nation? Do you think that will work in today’s global economy? If so, then am I remiss in thinking that you wish to disband NAFTA and the practices that go along with that? See, there is a LOT more to this conversation.

I consider myself a libertarian and I agree that the government has gotten WAY out of control but there are still things that the government must do. Most are outlined in the constitution and most could have been funded 200 years ago through what you described but this world is not the same as it was. The liberals and conservatives seem to have taken that to mean the government needs to grow in power, size and scope. I disagree but that does not mean there are not some basic changes. For instance, a navy is called for in the Constitution but a Navy today is NOT the same force that it used to be. It requires a LOT more resources to maintain an effective navy than it did back then (not taking into account that an air force is even more important now).

I don’t have a particular aversion to an income tax though what we currently have is nothing even remotely like an actual income tax.

Essentially, I am looking for some deeper conversation on this and it seems I am getting resistance and that somewhat surprises me. I am confused about the reluctance to get into a real discussion about what the other posters that consider themselves libertarians actually think here.

Lawful constitutional taxes are basically user fees and excises like the fuel tax to pay for roads and bridges....Don't want to pay for roads, then ride your bike or walk.

The income tax is an absolute abomination....No reason for it whatsoever, other than to reward friends and "correct" behavior and punish enemies and "incorrect" behavior....Time we quit trying to polish a turd (flat/"fair" tax) and end the failed experiment with unapportioned direct federal taxes on the people.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I dont believe building roads is a numerated power. If under interstate commerce, you feel these measures are there "required task" then anything jammed in there over the last 200 years is good to go too.

Anyway, the states were supposed to fund the federal government, not the citizens fund both. Whatever a state, or the fed can not perform because of its lack of "funds", then the private sector is to step in where the service faces actual failure, instead of just bleeding the public of more money.

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

Well, those are for the purpose of carrying post, not commerce or public use for original intent. So technically, you're broadening a precisely enumerated power.

Right. So why not take it twice? How about thrice? **** it. Just take all of it.

I've answered this question already several times. By imposing user taxes on services provided.

 

[Eric Cartman]

I dont believe building roads is a numerated power. If under interstate commerce, you feel these measures are there "required task" then anything jammed in there over the last 200 years is good to go too.

Anyway, the states were supposed to fund the federal government, not the citizens fund both. Whatever a state, or the fed can not perform because of its lack of "funds", then the private sector is to step in where the service faces actual failure, instead of just bleeding the public of more money.

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

Well, those are for the purpose of carrying post, not commerce or public use for original intent. So technically, you're broadening a precisely enumerated power.

Right. So why not take it twice? How about thrice? **** it. Just take all of it.

I've answered this question already several times. By imposing user taxes on services provided.

n McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How convenient. Still, constitution and case law will always be the difference between the failures of reality and the dreams of perfection. Men are stupid. And as such, so is Statism and the reason it is a failure and will always be a failure.

 

[FA_Q2]

I dont believe building roads is a numerated power. If under interstate commerce, you feel these measures are there "required task" then anything jammed in there over the last 200 years is good to go too.

Anyway, the states were supposed to fund the federal government, not the citizens fund both. Whatever a state, or the fed can not perform because of its lack of "funds", then the private sector is to step in where the service faces actual failure, instead of just bleeding the public of more money.

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

Well, those are for the purpose of carrying post, not commerce or public use for original intent. So technically, you're broadening a precisely enumerated power.

Right. So why not take it twice? How about thrice? **** it. Just take all of it.

I've answered this question already several times. By imposing user taxes on services provided.

Yes, they are but they are still roads. I will admit that I was not specific in stating that the current road system is beyond what the constitution entails but there are still requirements for roads. I guess that such could be paid for by postage though there would essentially be no post as the costs would be very high.

User fees are not really an answer though, as I have said. How do you impose a use fee on the navy? The police? Fire department? I will ask again, do you think that the government should provide those services?

 

[Oddball]

Article 1 section 8, sixth enumerated power includes a post office and post roads. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me wonder if you have even bothered to square your philosophy with the constitution.

Further, states funding the federal government solves nothing. ALL forms of government must get their funding from the people at some point. If the states fund the feds then where do they get the money? Of course it originates from the people. I ask again, HOW do you intend to fund the government? So far you have avoided both this question and clarifying how you view the constitution. You have not mentioned what you think the government should even do in the first place let alone how you are going to fund this system while being completely against taxes.

Well, those are for the purpose of carrying post, not commerce or public use for original intent. So technically, you're broadening a precisely enumerated power.

Right. So why not take it twice? How about thrice? **** it. Just take all of it.

I've answered this question already several times. By imposing user taxes on services provided.

Yes, they are but they are still roads. I will admit that I was not specific in stating that the current road system is beyond what the constitution entails but there are still requirements for roads. I guess that such could be paid for by postage though there would essentially be no post as the costs would be very high.

User fees are not really an answer though, as I have said. How do you impose a use fee on the navy? The police? Fire department? I will ask again, do you think that the government should provide those services?

You're crossing up federal with state and local.

And even taking your roads argument at face value, the feds only set forth the specs and the centralized funding mechanism (a stupid idea if there ever was one, but that's another argument) for the interstate system....The responsibility of actually building and maintaining the roads still falls to the states/localities....Likewise, though there exist scads of federal agents with police powers (another really stupid idea), there is no federal fire department.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're crossing up federal with state and local.

And even taking your roads argument at face value, the feds only set forth the specs and the centralized funding mechanism (a stupid idea if there ever was one, but that's another argument) for the interstate system....The responsibility of actually building and maintaining the roads still falls to the states/localities....Likewise, though there exist scads of federal agents with police powers (another really stupid idea), there is no federal fire department.

?
Who said anything about federal government? I did not mean to imply that I was talking strictly about federal government by using the constitution, I am referring to all government. While most government should be determined as low and close to the people as possible funding those spate levels is essentially an identical task. If we oppose taxes on the federal level because it is an offence to the NAP then I don’t see how that would be any different at the state, city, municipality or any other level of government.

Do you make a distinction when it comes to taxes? I did not get that from TASB’s posts. It seems to me that he is completely against all form of taxation. You have not really presented your take (or I missed it) on taxation either. How do you think that the government should be funded?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The only distinction I make is that user taxes are arguably no compulsory. Otherwise, taxation is compulsory and coercion is an act of aggression. When "they" asked for the tax money and you refused, they would leave you alone. But in reality if you refuse, they will ultimately point a gun in your face and pull the trigger for noncompliance.


So, yes, I do not like taxation as it disagrees with my non-aggression principles. It's theft.