NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244759,00.html

Do you think he is in the right or the wrong? Why?

I like pudding!




Sorry, couldn't resist. :(

He'll come out eventually. Figures this would happen in New Hampshire. The feds could try to forcefully out him, but public opinion would be against it (meaning threats to the elections of some officials) and it would be pointlessly risky. I say the feds should just wait it out.

As for whether he should pay taxes. I am a firm libertarian, but there is a difference between fighting an unjust system and dodging it.

Pudding is pretty sweet.

And he's definitely in the right. Lefties are supposed to like high taxes, right?

hes wrong.

In the wrong, like it or not, tax laws have been legally inacted by Congress and signed into law. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you don't have to pay them.

I was hoping the man would be Kent Hovind. Now that would be news!

As for the poll question, I don't think armed resistance to taxation is appropriate unless the taxes are extremely high or unfair (i.e. well above US levels of taxation).

He's guilty. As a citizen and property owner of the United States, he is required by law to pay the taxes assigned to him by the various levels of government in the country.

I'm sure he has had no problem using the roads and infrastructure built by tax money, and I'm sure he has had no problem with the taxpayer-funded military and legal systems which protect his right to own property and live as a free citizen of this country. Not to mention using the taxpayer-funded postal system to channel his wealth away from the government.

He's nothing but a greedy criminal who deserves to be punished for his theft like any other. Arrest him or let him rot in his "compound", because there is no excuse for theft.

I'm sure he has had no problem with the taxpayer-funded military and legal systems which protect his right to own property and live as a free citizen of this country.

Actually, he seems like the kind of guy who would be quite happy to defend his property personally.

So . . . anyone going to argue that he should not be guilty?

Play nothing but Pat Boone and William Shatner songs, non-stop. I guarantee within 3 days, he'll give himself up without a shot being fired. :D

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/1/18/f_taxesi_5db6m_47324c7.jpg

Regardless the facts of the case, or what this guy's rights are, you know we'll be spending more tax money apprehending the guy than he actually owes the government. Probably several times more.

Regardless the facts of the case, or what this guy's rights are, you know we'll be spending more tax money apprehending the guy than he actually owes the government. Probably several times more.

Maybe, but if they let some random nutcase get away with it, what kind of message is the gov't sending taxpayers?

Maybe, but if they let some random nutcase get away with it, what kind of message is the gov't sending taxpayers?

I know of a bunch of guys who live 'off the grid,' without paying taxes.. it's nothing new, but when you go public and make threats, the government basically has to deal with you. The guy probably had a dozen chances to just drive off and set up someplace else, but instead he goes public. Bad idea unless the guy actually wants trouble.

This dude knows how to play politics. He's got the feds by the balls. The feds won't assault the place for fear of another Ruby Ridge, and this dude probably has a years worth of supplies holed up there.

Now, lets see who blinks first.

not paying taxes is a rather funny thing.

1 the government does not recieve the amount of money you should pay
2 the government spends over the amount they would of recieved from you to put you in jail/prosecute you.

not paying taxes is a rather funny thing.

1 the government does not recieve the amount of money you should pay
2 the government spends over the amount they would of recieved from you to put you in jail/prosecute you.


Thats FedGov for ya.

not paying taxes is a rather funny thing.

1 the government does not recieve the amount of money you should pay
2 the government spends over the amount they would of recieved from you to put you in jail/prosecute you.

Depends on what your assets are. Don't think for a minute the federal government won't confiscate your house/car/Elvis Presley bobble-headed doll collection to pay your back taxes.

Regardless the facts of the case, or what this guy's rights are, you know we'll be spending more tax money apprehending the guy than he actually owes the government. Probably several times more.

Perhaps, but it'll be several times less then if they let the guy get away with it. Then many more people would evade paying their taxes.

Perhaps, but it'll be several times less then if they let the guy get away with it. Then many more people would evade paying their taxes.

Most people already do get away with it. I don't think putting this guy away will have much of a deterrent effect. It has to be done for political reasons, sure, but it's not going to affect nationwide trends, especially since interest is probably low outside New Hampshire.

Most people already do get away with it. I don't think putting this guy away will have much of a deterrent effect. It has to be done for political reasons, sure, but it's not going to affect nationwide trends, especially since interest is probably low outside New Hampshire.

Unless the feds do something really, really stupid.

I mean, this dude wins either way. He's not comming out, and the feds arn't comming in.

Depends on what your assets are. Don't think for a minute the federal government won't confiscate your house/car/Elvis Presley bobble-headed doll collection to pay your back taxes.
If they can confiscate our stuff, then, is the stuff really "ours" at all? :confused:

Most people already do get away with it. I don't think putting this guy away will have much of a deterrent effect. It has to be done for political reasons, sure, but it's not going to affect nationwide trends, especially since interest is probably low outside New Hampshire.

meh

Unless the feds do something really, really stupid.

I mean, this dude wins either way. He's not comming out, and the feds arn't comming in.

And then they cut his power, his water, his heat, his internet, his phone, and his tv, garnish his bank accounts for back payment and have his credit cards canceled.

Now he may have a back up generator, so he might have power, a bit. But no phone, no television, no internet, no money, no heat and no indoor plumbing, and if he steps one foot of his property he's nailed.

So he avoids prison by...spending the rest of his life in one.

Unless the feds do something really, really stupid.

I mean, this dude wins either way. He's not comming out, and the feds arn't comming in.

How does squatting in your own excrement in your house with no power, certain only that when you finally give up, you have decades in prison to look forward to count as "winning" ?

And then they cut his power, his internet, his phone, and his tv, garnish his bank accounts for back payment and have his credit cards canceled.

Now he may have a back up generator, so he might have power, a bit. But no phone, no television, no internet, no money, and if he steps one foot of his property he's nailed.

So he avoids prison by...spending the rest of his life in one.

He has a solar power system. I think it's in the article. SOP for these survivalist types. And lord knows if this dude even has bank accounts. He might have emptied them before holing up, or he might not have had one at all. And the feds aren't going to be there forever. They're resources are too limited to pin down one dude not paying taxes.

It's a waiting game. And time is on his side.

Perhaps, but it'll be several times less then if they let the guy get away with it. Then many more people would evade paying their taxes.

I disagree, He only owes several million. If he did this for the rest of his life the government would likely profit more from the sales tax he cant avoid than they would from stopping his trail cold. With the manpower (paychecks owed for sitting in front of a house), observation (probably at least one copter', things arent cheap to keep in the sky.) equipment (prolly several million of uncle Sams bucks) By the first week, they've likely overextended, When the court hearings start, they'll have spent 3x what he owes and since those are felonies, he'll likely be funded for a stay in prison.

How does squatting in your own excrement in your house with no power, certain only that when you finally give up, you have decades in prison to look forward to count as "winning" ?

He beat the government. Thats his victory.

He beat the government. Thats his victory.

Rather Pyrrhic victory though.

So he avoids prison by...spending the rest of his life in one.

At least in his house, he can drop the soap with dignity. That, and hes got guns. Good luck getting any chief to risk his boy's lives over a tax evader.

And then they cut his power, his water, his heat, his internet, his phone, and his tv, garnish his bank accounts for back payment and have his credit cards canceled.

Now he may have a back up generator, so he might have power, a bit. But no phone, no television, no internet, no money, no heat and no indoor plumbing, and if he steps one foot of his property he's nailed.

So he avoids prison by...spending the rest of his life in one.

I'm sure they put a lien on all of his property and accounts before the trial even started, so that's been done. If he's living in the hills, he's got a septic tank, so waste water is no problem. The guy says he has a generator, so he's got personal utilities covered.. with his 20 friends, he'll probably have some supplies.. food clothes and water.. sounds slightly better than prison.. :) Might make for some entertainment.

Rather Pyrrhic victory though.

But this is how these people think. It's rather odd.

He has a solar power system.

Oh solar power. Solar panel works by panels on a roof right? Panels that can be...oh I dunno...shot out?

But this is how these people think. It's rather odd.

True. We humans are weird.

He beat the government. Thats his victory.

what beat? He's stuck in his house and if steps a foot outside he'll be jailed for a VERY long time.

how, in any way, did he "beat" the government?

Oh solar power. Solar panel works by panels on a roof right? Panels that can be...oh I dunno...shot out?

or just a tarp.

Oh solar power. Solar panel works by panels on a roof right? Panels that can be...oh I dunno...shot out?

Gunfire would be a major escalation, and it would be all over the news. Imagine the Headlines.

FBI OPENS FIRE ON PEACEFUL TAX EVADER

They don't want another Ruby Ridge.

Gunfire would be a major escalation, and it would be all over the news. Imagine the Headlines.

FBI OPENS FIRE ON PEACEFUL TAX EVADER

They don't want another Ruby Ridge.

beanbag shotguns can be fired a good distance with quite a sufficent force to break solar panels (those things are fragile). Or as mentioned, just erect a large tarp over the house.

what beat? He's stuck in his house and if steps a foot outside he'll be jailed for a VERY long time.

how, in any way, did he "beat" the government?

In his mind, and in many others, he is sticking it to the government. And right now he is winning. He doesn't sound much like the "come out peacefully" type. He's not comming out until he runs out of food or they take him out.

In his mind, and in many others, he is sticking it to the government. And right now he is winning. He doesn't sound much like the "come out peacefully" type. He's not comming out until he runs out of food or they take him out.

so he either starves to death, gets shot to death, or gets hauled into jail for many many years, and not one day he spent in hs little seige gets credited, and he gets a very angry judge not willing to give him an inch.

So how is he winning? In his mind? Then he's a fucking moron. The fact is, nobody ever wins these things, nobody ever "beats" the government. You try to hole up and keep the feds out, the BEST you can hope for is, eventually, you either surrender, or they haul you out by your hair.

He beat the government. Thats his victory.

I don't really see how he's beaten the government.

He's a criminal and a bail-jumper, there are a whole lot of them out there.

Odds are he'll come out sooner rather than later, or they'll just go in and get him.

If there is any gun fire, it will be him trying to kill a policeman followed by him getting shot or gassed.

Bail jumping tax cheats who try to kill cops don't exactly garner the public's sympathy, and he doesnt have any kids or women for the feds to shoot.

This is assuming he'd actually be able to put up any resistance to a swat team to begin with.

beanbag shotguns can be fired a good distance with quite a sufficent force to break solar panels (those things are fragile)

Guns are guns. Fireing is fireing. The media wouldn't care, too.

And again, this dude is peaceful right now. The PR wouldn't be too good.

Guns are guns. Fireing is fireing. The media wouldn't care, too.

And again, this dude is peaceful right now. The PR wouldn't be too good.

trust me, the government is clever and remarkably vindictive when they want to be. If they wanted a way to cut his power, unless the generator is physically inside his house, they're going to find one.

I don't really see how he's beaten the government.

He's a criminal and a bail-jumper, there are a whole lot of them out there.

Odds are he'll come out sooner rather than later, or they'll just go in and get him.

If there is any gun fire, it will be him trying to kill a policeman followed by him getting shot or gassed.

Bail jumping tax cheats who try to kill cops don't exactly garner the public's sympathy, and he doesnt have any kids or women for the feds to shoot.

This is assuming he'd actually be able to put up any resistance to a swat team to begin with.


They're not going to go in. They do not want a repeat of Waco or Ruby Ridge. Storming such a position would be iffy. I just can't see the Police assaulting the place. If anything happened, it would be a serious PR disaster.

They're not going to go in. They do not want a repeat of Waco or Ruby Ridge. Storming such a position would be iffy. I just can't see the Police assaulting the place. If anything happened, it would be a serious PR disaster.

if it gets bad enough...wanna bet? PR is PR but at the end of the day it is their job to apprehend criminals, and if the situations gets to be where they need to storm the place, they will. And we'll see how much of a survivalist he is against a FBI SWAT team.

Man holes up in house, refuses to pay taxes



Why are they taxing his man holes?

They're not going to go in. They do not want a repeat of Waco or Ruby Ridge. Storming such a position would be iffy. I just can't see the Police assaulting the place. If anything happened, it would be a serious PR disaster.

Ruby ridge and waco were both controversial because innocent women and kids were killed.

The police have this division called, usually, the SWAT team, which, you know, specializes in going in and arresting or killing people who shut themselves up like this.

He ceases to be "peaceful" when he threatens the police with weapons. Then they can do anything they want to capture him without a fiasco.

If he doesnt want to threaten the police with weapons, then it will be easy for them to kick his door and drag him out. No fiasco there either.

An armed, dangerous, maniac tax cheat holed up in his fortress is not going to garner much public sympathy.

Again, he doesnt have any women or kids to scandalize the media.

if it gets bad enough...wanna bet? PR is PR but at the end of the day it is their job to apprehend criminals, and if the situations gets to be where they need to storm the place, they will. And we'll see how much of a survivalist he is against a FBI SWAT team.

Him, 25 of his friends, and lots and lots of guns? Thats a really, really bad combination. And I think he's going to generate alot of sympathy, little old homeowner standing up to the "big bad government". And if this guy gets shot and/or killed? Oh boy, heads will roll.

And these days, politics comes before jobs. Everyone wants to cover their ass. That's why they won't go in. And thats why he's winning.

Him, 25 of his friends, and lots and lots of guns? Thats a really, really bad combination. And I think he's going to generate alot of sympathy, little old homeowner standing up to the "big bad government". And if this guy gets shot and/or killed? Oh boy, heads will roll.

And these days, politics comes before jobs. Everyone wants to cover their ass. That's why they won't go in. And thats why he's winning.

and I think you are seriously misjudging FBI SWAT. At the end of the day, the best that can happen to this man is he end up in jail. That's the BEST thing that can happen to him. When your options range from "10 years in jail" to "shot 6 times in the face by a SWAT officer while you grope around blindly because of the tear gas" you are not winning.

It stretches credibility to compare a tax cheat with the women and kids killed at waco texas or ruby ridge.

If this guy and 25 armed friends want to shoot it out with the police, they will go down with that other famous 'tax prostestor' - Timothy Mcveigh.

This isnt some dinky homeowner vs the big bad government, its a sleazeball who cheated on his taxes and is now more or less threatening to kill policemen.

Not the paragon of virtue.

Why are they taxing his man holes?

Its how he earns a living. Gay porn.:D

Play nothing but Pat Boone and William Shatner songs, non-stop. I guarantee within 3 days, he'll give himself up without a shot being fired. :D
No you'll just have a sniper rifle shoot out the speakers.

and I think you are seriously misjudging FBI SWAT. At the end of the day, the best that can happen to this man is he end up in jail. That's the BEST thing that can happen to him. When your options range from "10 years in jail" to "shot 6 times in the face by a SWAT officer while you grope around blindly because of the tear gas" you are not winning. Some reason the way you say it reminds me more of this:


"Did you ever get a visit from the SWAT Team ?"
"Did you ever get a visit from the SWAT Team ?"
"It's really quite a thrill, cause they all been trained to kill"
"If you ever get a visit from the SWAT Team"

"If you ever get a visit from the SWAT Team"
"If you ever get a visit from the SWAT Team"
"You best be prepared to die, cause they'll swat you like a fly"
"If you ever get a visit from the SWAT Team"

I by no means endorse any part of the above song. I just thought it was interesting.

It stretches credibility to compare a tax cheat with the women and kids killed at waco texas or ruby ridge.

If this guy and 25 armed friends want to shoot it out with the police, they will go down with that other famous 'tax prostestor' - Timothy Mcveigh.


Maybe not an important point, but I don't think any of what Tim McVeigh claimed to be doing had anything to do with taxes. The guy in this case may be an oddball, but I don't think you can immediately lump him in with a mass-murderer like McVeigh on account of his buddy having guns.

Do you think he is in the right or the wrong? Why?

If I understand correctly, this guy wants to use the things taxpayers provide without being a taxpayer himself. He is in other words a parasite.

If you do not wish to pay taxes, follow the Amish example and sign away your rights to social security etc. Stop using what taxes provide, and I think it fair to not pay them.
Legislation may disagree though...

Maybe not an important point, but I don't think any of what Tim McVeigh claimed to be doing had anything to do with taxes. The guy in this case may be an oddball, but I don't think you can immediately lump him in with a mass-murderer like McVeigh on account of his buddy having guns.

They both fall into the same category of violent anti-government maniacs.

Sadly, if anything, this worthless idiot is going to give various government organizations more of an excuse to up-arm and militarize if they have to shoot it out with him.

Ideally no one will be hurt, and if anyone is, hopefully it's him and not someone who has to go after him.

I do, however, think that the IRS ought to fuck off. There are plenty of people out there hiding even MORE money from Uncle Sam...why not spend their time and efforts finding them, hmm?

Because this person is screaming from the rooftops.

EDIT: ooooooh - worship my precognition skills ;)

Do you think he is in the right or the wrong? Why?

"My life is destroyed, what more can I say?" Brown said when reached for a brief phone conversation. "I lost my wife and she lost her business."

He's not coming out...regardless of the consqeuences.

She testified she had tried to work out a payment plan with the Internal Revenue Service in the early 1990s after her tax bill significantly exceeded her estimates one year, the Concord Monitor reported.

She said the IRS didn't respond for months, then demanded that she pay her bill in full, plus interest and penalties, even though she had made payments. She said she eventually refused to pay when she later learned of an additional fine for $3,300 and the money was seized from her bank account.

If this is indeed true, it doesn't help the feds...it's just another example of horridly inefficient government agencies.

On Thursday, a jury found that the couple spent $215,890 through 311 postal money orders on real estate principal. The couple purchased four, $700 postal money orders at a time to pay their bills. By staying under what was then a $3,000 threshold, they avoided federal reporting and intended to keep the government guessing about their income.

Funny...last time I checked it was not the job of law enforcement to crack down on someone exploiting a loophole. That's why they CALL it a loophole, because it is a gap in the law that is perfectly legal to exploit.

It is the job of legislators to CLOSE the loophole...

The jury found the Browns must forfeit $215,000, at least part of which must by satisfied by giving up their home or the dental practice's offices.

Give up your home, or give up your livelihood....nice :rolleyes:

I'd call that cruel and unusual punishment...it is both cruel and unusual to force someone to make that kind of a choice.

...I can't really say I support the guy. Threatening police, even indirectly, is stupid and unwarranted.

I do, however, think that the IRS ought to fuck off. There are plenty of people out there hiding even MORE money from Uncle Sam...why not spend their time and efforts finding them, hmm?

I know of a bunch of guys who live 'off the grid,' without paying taxes.. it's nothing new, but when you go public and make threats, the government basically has to deal with you. The guy probably had a dozen chances to just drive off and set up someplace else, but instead he goes public. Bad idea unless the guy actually wants trouble.

I've been out of the tax paying scam for a while now. Just go back to college and live on loans for ten years. Then move to Chile and disappear untili they forget about you. That's my theory and I'm stickin to it:D

In the wrong, like it or not, tax laws have been legally inacted by Congress and signed into law. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you don't have to pay them.

sounds like they've been doing more than just that, what with underpaying employees and whatnot. sounds like the kind of person who takes "freedom" as 'i'll do what the fuck i like'

i don't like that man. i hope he gets thrown in jail for a nice long time

Make an example of him.

If the guy is making any use of tax-funded public infrastructures or services, and he refuses to pay tax, then he's a thief leeching off his fellow citizens.

I'd like to see this lead to a larger tax revolt against the federal government.

As for whether he should pay taxes. I am a firm libertarian, but there is a difference between fighting an unjust system and dodging it.

Yes for the former you go to prison, the latter you get a jump start on a political career, or if you get caught you go to prison.

The land of the free and imprisoned.

We should all remember the future words of Richard Milhouse Nixon...

“We’re free to choose which hand our sex monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don’t want to pay our taxes, why, we’re free to spend a weekend with the pain monster."

He'll come out eventually. Figures this would happen in New Hampshire. The feds could try to forcefully out him, but public opinion would be against it (meaning threats to the elections of some officials) and it would be pointlessly risky. I say the feds should just wait it out.

As for whether he should pay taxes. I am a firm libertarian, but there is a difference between fighting an unjust system and dodging it.

I think he's safe. Janet Reno is not running the Justice Department, so there won't be a tank assault followed by a wholescale torching.

Hurrah! Long live him, I say! :D

He's guilty. As a citizen and property owner of the United States, he is required by law to pay the taxes assigned to him by the various levels of government in the country.

I'm sure he has had no problem using the roads and infrastructure built by tax money, and I'm sure he has had no problem with the taxpayer-funded military and legal systems which protect his right to own property and live as a free citizen of this country. Not to mention using the taxpayer-funded postal system to channel his wealth away from the government.

He's nothing but a greedy criminal who deserves to be punished for his theft like any other. Arrest him or let him rot in his "compound", because there is no excuse for theft.

QFT

Hey, it's a revolution! He's already got the barricade, all he needs now is some more supporters and he has a small chance at success. This remind you of a play, by any chance?

Do you hear the people sing,
singing the song of the con men,
It is the music of the people who will not be taxed again
when the beating of your heart matches the beating of the drums,
there is a scheme about to start when tomorrow comes!


cookie to anyone who knows what play this is from, two to the person who writes the next verse.

Hey, it's a revolution! He's already got the barricade, all he needs now is some more supporters and he has a small chance at success.

and a cool flag!

but honestly he is more of a criminal then a revolutionary (of course it's hard to draw a line)

cookie to anyone who knows what play this is from, two to the person who writes the next verse.

Les Mis?

I fully support this man's actions. Society of mutual co-operation all the way! Tax is theft! etc

Tax is theft! etc

Property is theft!

See? I can play this funny game too. :D

Les Mis?


Correct! Give the man a cookie.

Play nothing but Pat Boone and William Shatner songs, non-stop. I guarantee within 3 days, he'll give himself up without a shot being fired. :D

Something like that worked in Panama when Noriega was holed up somewhere, didn't it? I especially liked that his wife didn't pay enough taxes in for her employees, which I imagine got them in trouble with the IRS, or at least made them have to write checks to the government.

In the wrong, like it or not, tax laws have been legally inacted by Congress and signed into law. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you don't have to pay them.

I think you don't understand. There's a difference, morally (though not legally) between not paying taxes or otherwise violating a law for your own selfish benefit - and engaging in civil disobedience because you disagree.

This is clearly the latter.

Yay, a cookie! :D

I think you don't understand. There's a difference, morally (though not legally) between not paying taxes or otherwise violating a law for your own selfish benefit - and engaging in civil disobedience because you disagree.

This is clearly the latter.

Fine, his refusal to pay what he considers unjust taxes is civil disobedience. He still goes directly to jail, does not collect $200, and sits there until he serves his sentence. Calling it "civil disobedience" does not exempt you from the penalties.

I think you don't understand. There's a difference, morally (though not legally) between not paying taxes or otherwise violating a law for your own selfish benefit - and engaging in civil disobedience because you disagree.

This is clearly the latter.

actually from the article it certainly seemed like both. or perhaps the former with the latter as an excuse

Apparently no one on this forum has actually READ and understood the 16th admendment. The supreme court declared personal income tax by the federal government to be unlawful in 1913. If anyone can find the law that requires you to pay federal income tax, i'd love to see it, because it does not exist.

He's not coming out...regardless of the consqeuences.



If this is indeed true, it doesn't help the feds...it's just another example of horridly inefficient government agencies.



Funny...last time I checked it was not the job of law enforcement to crack down on someone exploiting a loophole. That's why they CALL it a loophole, because it is a gap in the law that is perfectly legal to exploit.

It is the job of legislators to CLOSE the loophole...[q/uote]

Law enforcement is involved because he's now refusing a court order and a warrant. It was the courts that have declared that "loophole" to be invalid for quite a long time.



[QUOTE=Delator;12227504]Give up your home, or give up your livelihood....nice :rolleyes:

I'd call that cruel and unusual punishment...it is both cruel and unusual to force someone to make that kind of a choice.

...I can't really say I support the guy. Threatening police, even indirectly, is stupid and unwarranted.

I do, however, think that the IRS ought to fuck off. There are plenty of people out there hiding even MORE money from Uncle Sam...why not spend their time and efforts finding them, hmm?

Maybe because they illegally played paperwork games to avoid paying taxes on their home and business? Perhaps that might be the reason?

Apparently no one on this forum has actually READ and understood the 16th admendment. The supreme court declared personal income tax by the federal government to be unlawful in 1913. If anyone can find the law that requires you to pay federal income tax, i'd love to see it, because it does not exist.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That seems pretty straight-forward to me. The amendment was ratified in 1913 and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld income taxes based on it ever since. So, in what decision did SCOTUS declare personal income tax by the federal government to be unlawful?

Apparently no one on this forum has actually READ and understood the 16th admendment. The supreme court declared personal income tax by the federal government to be unlawful in 1913. If anyone can find the law that requires you to pay federal income tax, i'd love to see it, because it does not exist.

And your source for this BS? SCOTUS cannot declare a constitutional amendment to be unlawful or unconstitutional.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html

You might also want to look at USC 26.

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

Edit: Yeah, that's what I thought.

Fine, his refusal to pay what he considers unjust taxes is civil disobedience. He still goes directly to jail, does not collect $200, and sits there until he serves his sentence. Calling it "civil disobedience" does not exempt you from the penalties.


We were talking about his moral position, I thought. It was clear he was going to get PWNed by the law in some form.

The question is who is morally right.

We were talking about his moral position, I thought. It was clear he was going to get PWNed by the law in some form.

The question is who is morally right.

Yes, his moral position. Okay, well, I don't like paying taxes all that much, either. If I felt very strongly about it, I'd bombard my elected representatives with letters and work to get people elected, locally and nationally, who would either reduce my taxes or eliminate them altogether. Barricading oneself in a house and refusing to pay taxes that one legally owes is not a realistic option and tends to diminish one's moral stance.

Yes, his moral position. Okay, well, I don't like paying taxes all that much, either. If I felt very strongly about it, I'd bombard my elected representatives with letters and work to get people elected, locally and nationally, who would either reduce my taxes or eliminate them altogether. Barricading oneself in a house and refusing to pay taxes that one legally owes is not a realistic option and tends to diminish one's moral stance.

Y'all need to read more Thoreau.

He is morally wrong.

He has benefitted enormously from the advantages conferred by living in a first rate country, and those advantages are bought with taxes.

He has taken things without paying for them and defrauded all decent people who don't cheat on their taxes.

Now he is apparently planning to waste more of our money apprehending him and possibly hurt or kill people.

One hundred percent scumbag.

Agreed 100%. He tried to play a "gotcha" game w/ the Gov't and lost. Just like Dr. Dino and a slew of others.

Do you think he would feel better if they said he didn't have to pay taxes and just sent him a bill for use of public utilities?

We were talking about his moral position, I thought. It was clear he was going to get PWNed by the law in some form.

The question is who is morally right.

He is morally wrong.

He has benefitted enormously from the advantages conferred by living in a first rate country, and those advantages are bought with taxes.

He has taken things without paying for them and defrauded all decent people who don't cheat on their taxes.

Now he is apparently planning to waste more of our money apprehending him and possibly hurt or kill people.

One hundred percent scumbag.

Y'all need to read more Thoreau.

I have. He's very 19th century. Good pencils, though. And I doubt he would approve of the armed stance this man has taken. Thoreau would have refused to pay his taxes and gone to jail for it, not picked up his rifle. It's the rifle that diminishes the moral stance, sorry.

Y'all need to read more Thoreau.

Because as we all know, thoreau was quite in favor of barricading himself in an arsenal and shooting the police instead of going to jail.

W-T-F?

He is morally wrong.

He has benefitted enormously from the advantages conferred by living in a first rate country, and those advantages are bought with taxes.

He has taken things without paying for them and defrauded all decent people who don't cheat on their taxes.

Now he is apparently planning to waste more of our money apprehending him and possibly hurt or kill people.

One hundred percent scumbag.

Exactly. Not to mention that he used the taxpayer-funded postal service to shuttle his wealth around and hide it from the government.

Honestly, he's no better than a common thief, stealing money that people like me or you or anyone else in this country pay in exchange for the services given to us by government. He is robbing all of us, and deserves the punishment any thief gets.

100% scumbag...no question.

I have. He's very 19th century. Good pencils, though. And I doubt he would approve of the armed stance this man has taken. Thoreau would have refused to pay his taxes and gone to jail for it, not picked up his rifle. It's the rifle that diminishes the moral stance, sorry.

I thought your claim was "...refusing to pay taxes that one legally owes is not a realistic option and tends to diminish one's moral stance," that did the diminishing. That's exactly the action that "Civil Disobedience" proscribed.

Interesting that there are people here willing to find excuses for this scum leeching off their tax money...

Interesting that there are people here willing to find excuses for this scum leeching off their tax money...

I don't think he's "leeching" off of my tax money. The state took it from both of us by force, and if they use that money for things for the public to use he should be entitled to use them- after all, there was no actual contract saying that he had to pay for them. In fact, I think it's deliciously ironic that he used the apparatus of the state to screw it over. I wish more people would do the same.

I don't think he's "leeching" off of my tax money. The state took it from both of us by force, and if they use that money for things for the public to use he should be entitled to use them- after all, there was no actual contract saying that he had to pay for them. In fact, I think it's deliciously ironic that he used the apparatus of the state to screw it over. I wish more people would do the same.

He is a citizen of the US therefore he is required to follow its laws, including paying taxes. That whole "social contract" thing. He refused to pay taxes and played games that had already been deemed illegal by court precendent but continued to use the public services w/o helping to provide for them.

I you wish more people would do this, then would you be willing to forgoe social/public services that are no longer able to be maintained?

He is a citizen of the US therefore he is required to follow its laws, including paying taxes. That whole "social contract" thing. He refused to pay taxes and played games that had already been deemed illegal by court precendent but continued to use the public services w/o helping to provide for them.

I you wish more people would do this, then would you be willing to forgoe social/public services that are no longer able to be maintained?

Social contract is a lie- a contract doesn't unilaterally change and exist without prior agreement. The courts should be the ones eliminated, because they exist by taking people's money, not through agreement but through force. If anything, the government should be the ones holed up in their houses and surrounded, not him.

And I wish more people would do this, so that government would wilt away and people could be free to live as they wish.

Social contract is a lie- a contract doesn't unilaterally change and exist without prior agreement. The courts should be the ones eliminated, because they exist by taking people's money, not through agreement but through force. If anything, the government should be the ones holed up in their houses and surrounded, not him.

And I wish more people would do this, so that government would wilt away and people could be free to live as they wish.

Ah, you're one of those.

There is a "prior agreement". It's called citizenship. He is a citizen of the US. He is a citizen of NH, which is a state of the US, and whatever township he belongs to, by prior agreement. You are a citizen of the US. Feel free to renounce that citizenship.

Of course by even accepting the money, he was entering into a contract. Might try reading those little green bills sometime.

The Gov't will "wilt away". Along w/ roads, utilities, communications, fire services, etc. Unless you're willing to pay (yes pay, kind of like direct taxes) a private enterprise to do so.

DAMN! I was going to post this...If he can defend his claim legally or with force, then he doesn't ahve to.

You chose a poor choice for your material - it is Fox News for crying out loud! Didn't Reuters or CNN or CBS carry this story?

You chose a poor choice for your material - it is Fox News for crying out loud! Didn't Reuters or CNN or CBS carry this story?

It was on Yahoo yesterday. Almost word for word.

Guns are guns. Fireing is fireing. The media wouldn't care, too.

And again, this dude is peaceful right now. The PR wouldn't be too good.


Good point, just one problem with that. The police have a warrant for his arrest, and by not allowing them to serve said warrant, Mr. Brown gives the police full rights to tear gas his house, bust down his door, and if he shoots at them, they should be able to shoot him, no question asked.

Ah, you're one of those.

It depends on which of us you ask.

There is a "prior agreement". It's called citizenship. He is a citizen of the US. He is a citizen of NH, which is a state of the US, and whatever township he belongs to, by prior agreement. You are a citizen of the US. Feel free to renounce that citizenship.

Ah, so if I'm a gangbanger and you step onto my street, you agree to pay me everything in your wallet?

Of course by even accepting the money, he was entering into a contract. Might try reading those little green bills sometime.

He HAS to accept the little green bills- that's what legal tender is. (I, personally, hope they all end up in an incinerator one day.)

The Gov't will "wilt away". Along w/ roads, utilities, communications, fire services, etc. Unless you're willing to pay (yes pay, kind of like direct taxes) a private enterprise to do so.

Why yes, actually, I am willing to pay a private enterprise to do so! But I'd get to choose which one, and they couldn't break into my house to arrest me if I didn't want to do business with them.

There is no right or wrong here. He's made a choice, and he knows what the consequences are.

The government, however, has a responsibility to try to seize him. If they don't, I think they're abandoning any claim to being the lawful authority.

It depends on which of us you ask.

That's nice.



Ah, so if I'm a gangbanger and you step onto my street, you agree to pay me everything in your wallet?

Nice false analogy. It would be more appropriate under the system you want however as the gangbanger is not operating under the current social contract.



He HAS to accept the little green bills- that's what legal tender is. (I, personally, hope they all end up in an incinerator one day.)

No, he doesn't "have" to. He's free to go somewhere else and live under their rules. Who made it "legal tender"? Oh, right. Prior agreement of the citizens of the US, of which he is one.



Why yes, actually, I am willing to pay a private enterprise to do so! But I'd get to choose which one, and they couldn't break into my house to arrest me if I didn't want to do business with them.

Depends on the contract. There was no "breaking into his house" until he refused to follow the law (which he is bound by as a voluntary citizen) and then threatened the authorities. How would you pay for your services if there is no legal tender? Trade? Who decides what's worth what? You may "choose" whatever service you like if they decide to do business w/ you or if there's even that service available. OF course when those couple big companies take ovr the majority of services and jack prices up sky high (as happened in the late 1800's early 1900's) you won't be able to afford those services.

I thought your claim was "...refusing to pay taxes that one legally owes is not a realistic option and tends to diminish one's moral stance," that did the diminishing. That's exactly the action that "Civil Disobedience" proscribed.

Nice try. What I actually said was, "Barricading oneself in a house and refusing to pay taxes that one legally owes is not a realistic option and tends to diminish one's moral stance." Next time quote all of what I said, okay?

I don't think he's "leeching" off of my tax money. The state took it from both of us by force, and if they use that money for things for the public to use he should be entitled to use them- after all, there was no actual contract saying that he had to pay for them. In fact, I think it's deliciously ironic that he used the apparatus of the state to screw it over. I wish more people would do the same.

Really? Tax collectors came to your house and removed money from your pocket?

If you don't like paying taxes, move to a state where the taxes are less, or to a country that doesn't have any. Or if you like living in the tax-funded United States of America, with its tax-funded roads and bridges and sewage systems and other mod cons, work within the system. If there really are that many people out there that share your point of view, organize them and get the income tax repealed. Or is that too much trouble?

Nice false analogy. It would be more appropriate under the system you want however as the gangbanger is not operating under the current social contract.

Yes, he is not under the social contract. Neither is the government. Neither is anyone, because the social contract is a lie construed by apologists for government.

No, he doesn't "have" to. He's free to go somewhere else and live under their rules. Who made it "legal tender"? Oh, right. Prior agreement of the citizens of the US, of which he is one.

No, the government decreed it was legal tender, under the auspices of "serving the people." And the current people certainly didn't accept it, so why should we be bound by the prior agreement of people who are long dead?

Depends on the contract. There was no "breaking into his house" until he refused to follow the law (which he is bound by as a voluntary citizen) and then threatened the authorities. How would you pay for your services if there is no legal tender? Trade? Who decides what's worth what? You may "choose" whatever service you like if they decide to do business w/ you or if there's even that service available. OF course when those couple big companies take ovr the majority of services and jack prices up sky high (as happened in the late 1800's early 1900's) you won't be able to afford those services.

The law of the government was forced onto him, and he has every right to resist it. I and others would pay for it in whatever currency the market decided on- most likely gold, seeing as it best fits the roles of store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. I doubt that there would be just a few big companies that take over everything, and even moreso that they would be able to jack up prices, since the time you are bemoaning is that of government intervention (breaking strikes with the army, subsidies, etc.) on the side of big business (and government would not exist in my ideal view.)

Really? Tax collectors came to your house and removed money from your pocket?

No, they threatened me with sending me to jail and confiscating what's mine if I didn't. Even worse than just picking my pockets.

If you don't like paying taxes, move to a state where the taxes are less, or to a country that doesn't have any. Or if you like living in the tax-funded United States of America, with its tax-funded roads and bridges and sewage systems and other mod cons, work within the system. If there really are that many people out there that share your point of view, organize them and get the income tax repealed. Or is that too much trouble?

No one should have to live with having money forced from them, no matter what purpose it later goes to. All of the things you have listed can be provided without government, least of all without government expropriation. Every individual should have the option of being able to secede from whatever country they're in, and be able to keep their property instead of being forced off of it and have it taken from them.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said Thursday that members of his staff continued talking by telephone with Brown and had no plans to confront him.

"We've established a good line of communication, all of our conversations have been amicable and friendly, and that's how we expect they will continue," Monier said.

If we're to believe the US Marshal, they're not planning to go in, and there doesn't appear to be a great deal of tension between the two camps.

Yes, he is not under the social contract. Neither is the government. Neither is anyone, because the social contract is a lie construed by apologists for government.

Yes he is and no it isn't.



No, the government decreed it was legal tender, under the auspices of "serving the people." And the current people certainly didn't accept it, so why should we be bound by the prior agreement of people who are long dead?

So you define yourself as the "current people"? Seems about 299 million + others accept and recognize it as an agreement.



The law of the government was forced onto him, and he has every right to resist it. I and others would pay for it in whatever currency the market decided on- most likely gold, seeing as it best fits the roles of store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. I doubt that there would be just a few big companies that take over everything, and even moreso that they would be able to jack up prices, since the time you are bemoaning is that of government intervention (breaking strikes with the army, subsidies, etc.) on the side of big business (and government would not exist in my ideal view.)[/quote}

Then he should renounce his citizenship. We're also not on the Gold standard anymore. Haven't been for a long time. Who decides what the current market value is and the medium of exchange? Whoever controls the markets. That won't be you.

So Microsoft hasn't been under fire for monopolization? Your ignorance is showing. Your "ideal" is more likely to lead to gang bangers roaming and cotnrolling the streets than big gov't. Your "ideal" is the one that supports big business as they would shortly control everything w/o gov't restrictions.



[QUOTE=Greill;12229164]No, they threatened me with sending me to jail and confiscating what's mine if I didn't. Even worse than just picking my pockets.

Then denounce your citizenship and leave. Don't use the roads though.



No one should have to live with having money forced from them, no matter what purpose it later goes to. All of the things you have listed can be provided without government, least of all without government expropriation. Every individual should have the option of being able to secede from whatever country they're in, and be able to keep their property instead of being forced off of it and have it taken from them.

That's nice. You can live in your world of make-believe that everything would be wonderful if gov't collapses. When Mega-corp and their mercenaries come to your house to kick you out because they want to expand their strip mining enterprise, you'll cry about not having that social contract provided protection.

It "can be" provided but doesn't mean that it "will be" provided.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who refuses to pay their taxes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the Law allows.

We are required to pay taxes. Our taxes pay for the infrastucture, Law Enforcement, Many parts of the government (Social Services, VA, Public Schools, etc...) Our taxes, whether you like it or not, is a major player in giving us the Freedoms to do as we please as long as it's within the Law.

I'm really tired of these scammers who avoid paying their taxes. I hope that bastard loses everything and spends a long time in jail. How much taxes did they say he avoided paying on...$1.something million dollars. Damned be him.

I am staunchly critical of the government and its appropriate of funds for projects it has no legal authority to fund. It flagrantly wastes a substantial portion of the money it takes.

As such, I fully support anyone’s fight against such taxation, provided you do it in a reasonable manner. That reasonable manner would be in petitioning your representatives, educating your fellow citizens in your position (in the hopes of gaining more support), and minimizing your interaction with the programs you do not support.

This man is a criminal. He attempted to avoid taxes in an underhanded and illegitimate manner. He gets no sympathy from me.

That being said, he really has a good setup. If he really can survive cut off (own power generation, sufficient food supplies, etc.) then all he has to do is wait it out. When the government inevitably storms the place, the negative publicity would cause no end of trouble, and someone’s head will roll. In the interest of keeping one’s job, nobody wants to make that call.

Eventually, if it is not stormed soon, there will be an outcry against spending such absurd amounts of money on keeping these people under siege. Resources will be diverted, manpower will not be sufficient to completely surround the compound, and people will be able to sneak in and out. Any remaining police presence will be purely for show.

I am staunchly critical of the government and its appropriate of funds for projects it has no legal authority to fund. It flagrantly wastes a substantial portion of the money it takes.

As such, I fully support anyone’s fight against such taxation, provided you do it in a reasonable manner. That reasonable manner would be in petitioning your representatives, educating your fellow citizens in your position (in the hopes of gaining more support), and minimizing your interaction with the programs you do not support.

This man is a criminal. He attempted to avoid taxes in an underhanded and illegitimate manner. He gets no sympathy from me.

That being said, he really has a good setup. If he really can survive cut off (own power generation, sufficient food supplies, etc.) then all he has to do is wait it out. When the government inevitably storms the place, the negative publicity would cause no end of trouble, and someone’s head will roll. In the interest of keeping one’s job, nobody wants to make that call.

Eventually, if it is not stormed soon, there will be an outcry against spending such absurd amounts of money on keeping these people under siege. Resources will be diverted, manpower will not be sufficient to completely surround the compound, and people will be able to sneak in and out. Any remaining police presence will be purely for show.



The biggest issue will probably be food/water/sewage. I'm sure he has a well and septic system. Neither are usually set up to handle 26 people for large periods of time however. Things will start drying/backing up. Food for that many would also take up considerable space.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244759,00.html

Do you think he is in the right or the wrong? Why?
Haven't you ever seen a tax evader before? He's just another white-collar criminal.

Pretending to go along with the system and then cheating when no one's looking is not civil disobedience. Neither is trying to resist the legal consequences of your actions.

If he had refused to pay taxes from the start and gone to jail for it, that would be civil disobedience. As it is, he's just a guy who got caught cheating and barricaded himself in his home.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, though.

I'm sure they put a lien on all of his property and accounts before the trial even started, so that's been done. If he's living in the hills, he's got a septic tank, so waste water is no problem. The guy says he has a generator, so he's got personal utilities covered.. with his 20 friends, he'll probably have some supplies.. food clothes and water.. sounds slightly better than prison.. :) Might make for some entertainment.

Well, I don't know if you have ever had a septic tank, but my family had one at our old house. Family of 4 filled that thing about once ever couple months. I'm thinkin' a group of twenty will fill this one in a matter of a few weeks. Then the tanks will overflow. And drainage connected to it will overflow. The shit will, quite literally, hit the fan.

:D

Well, I don't know if you have ever had a septic tank, but my family had one at our old house. Family of 4 filled that thing about once ever couple months. I'm thinkin' a group of twenty will fill this one in a matter of a few weeks. Then the tanks will overflow. And drainage connected to it will overflow. The shit will, quite literally, hit the fan.

:D

A properly maintained system can operate indefinately. My in-laws (household of 2-4) haven't had to emtpy theirs in over 20 years. However, like you said, few are designed to handle 26 people for any length of time. I have a feeling his isn't one of those few unless he's been planning this exact scenario for a long time.

The biggest issue will probably be food/water/sewage. I'm sure he has a well and septic system. Neither are usually set up to handle 26 people for large periods of time however. Things will start drying/backing up. Food for that many would also take up considerable space.

My house is a 4 bedroom in a small neighborhood. It was never meant to have more than a family of 4 living there. That being said, our well really doesn’t care how many people are drinking from it, and the septic tanks could easily accommodate the waste from 26 people for easily a year before any hint of a problem. Granted, we do have double the septic capacity that we intended – the inspector was too blatant about the bribe. Everyone else was at least fairly subtle so we had no problems greasing the wheels, but this guy was just a total ass. If you are so uncouth, we would rather incur the huge extra cost rather than the small payment to such a boor.

Actually, if you are somewhat careful, they could probably handle that many people indefinitely. Put your food in a compost heap rather than down the disposal, and the only solids going into the tanks would be human excrement – that does a good job of feeding the bacteria in the tanks and breaks down very rapidly. If you limit the amount of bleach and soaps going into the tanks, the bacterial levels will remain high enough to destroy the waste before it becomes a problem.

Well, I don't know if you have ever had a septic tank, but my family had one at our old house. Family of 4 filled that thing about once ever couple months. I'm thinkin' a group of twenty will fill this one in a matter of a few weeks. Then the tanks will overflow. And drainage connected to it will overflow. The shit will, quite literally, hit the fan.

:D

Sounds like you didn't have a clue about the proper care and feeding of a septic tank. There is absolutely no reason to have to empty it that often - once every 5 years is fairly standard if you have a very old and poorly maintained system. You must have killed off the bacteria in it so that nothing broke down - too much soap and bleach going down the drain can do that. You also should be careful what goes down the disposal. Only send down easily biodegradable things - eggshells, hard nuts, shrimp shells, etc should all be limited.

Yes he is and no it isn't.

No he isn't and yes it is. I don't see how any social contract refuses to allow people to secede or make their own protection companies. Which obviously means that the social contract really is just a myth.

So you define yourself as the "current people"? Seems about 299 million + others accept and recognize it as an agreement.

Thank you for twisting what I said, but no. I said that any acts passed by a legislature, even though they don't have grounds to inflict them on the present people, certainly don't have the ability to continue to inflict said acts from thereon to people who weren't even around when the act passed.

Then he should renounce his citizenship. We're also not on the Gold standard anymore. Haven't been for a long time. Who decides what the current market value is and the medium of exchange? Whoever controls the markets. That won't be you.

Thank you for alerting me to the fact that we don't use the gold standard now and haven't for a while. I did not know this. :rolleyes:

And no, you're wrong, again. You can take whatever you want in exchange, without the need for a government to impose it. So, I do decide what I use in my transactions.

So Microsoft hasn't been under fire for monopolization? Your ignorance is showing. Your "ideal" is more likely to lead to gang bangers roaming and cotnrolling the streets than big gov't. Your "ideal" is the one that supports big business as they would shortly control everything w/o gov't restrictions.

Microsoft didn't do anything wrong, but was rather put under the axe for A.) Political reasons and B.) Because they could, with that ridiculous Sherman anti-trust act (Made to support the railroads, in actual fact.) And I think it's incredibly naive that you think somehow that government is insulated from business and is any kind of real impediment, even if they have far more benefit with cooperating with business. Your ignorance is the one that seems to be showing moreso.

Then denounce your citizenship and leave. Don't use the roads though.

Why the hell should I have to? It's the government, the biggest gang in the world, that's the problem.

That's nice. You can live in your world of make-believe that everything would be wonderful if gov't collapses. When Mega-corp and their mercenaries come to your house to kick you out because they want to expand their strip mining enterprise, you'll cry about not having that social contract provided protection.

It "can be" provided but doesn't mean that it "will be" provided.

Hehe, you're funny. No, actually, the way it would work would be that people would spontaneously band together to minimize risks, like they do with everything, without the need for a government- this would include deterrents for EVIL MEGACORP and their baby-eating mercenary Nazis. Despite what you think, people don't need a government to herd them about because they're weak, mindless sheep- they can take care of themselves on their own.

No he isn't and yes it is. I don't see how any social contract refuses to allow people to secede or make their own protection companies. Which obviously means that the social contract really is just a myth.

So because you can't "see" it means it doesn't exist?



Thank you for twisting what I said, but no. I said that any acts passed by a legislature, even though they don't have grounds to inflict them on the present people, certainly don't have the ability to continue to inflict said acts from thereon to people who weren't even around when the act passed.

You're just rambling now. If people didn't accept it, then the laws get pushed to be changed. Since the overwhelming majority of "current people" accept the standards, then they're not being "inflicted".



Thank you for alerting me to the fact that we don't use the gold standard now and haven't for a while. I did not know this. :rolleyes:
Obviously.

And no, you're wrong, again. You can take whatever you want in exchange, without the need for a government to impose it. So, I do decide what I use in my transactions.

You can take whatever you want. That doesn't mean others have to accept it. So you don't decide what to use when you buy things, the other in the party decides what they'll accept. Try again.



Microsoft didn't do anything wrong, but was rather put under the axe for A.) Political reasons and B.) Because they could, with that ridiculous Sherman anti-trust act (Made to support the railroads, in actual fact.) And I think it's incredibly naive that you think somehow that government is insulated from business and is any kind of real impediment, even if they have far more benefit with cooperating with business. Your ignorance is the one that seems to be showing moreso.

More lack of historical knowledge. There were a lot more monopolies than just the railroads. Try again. Microsoft designed their products so others couldn't be used w/ theirs and you couldn't get rid of what they wanted w/ it. Coming from one who demands "choice", that seems an odd line to take. I never said gov't was "insulated" from business. You seem to be good at making things up. Are you trying to say that Utility companies would voluntarily supply people off the main track w/o charging exorbitant fees unless the Gov't said so? You think they'ld care about strip mining or deforestation?



Why the hell should I have to? It's the government, the biggest gang in the world, that's the problem.

And your policy would just create lots more gangs to have to deal w/.



Hehe, you're funny. No, actually, the way it would work would be that people would spontaneously band together to minimize risks, like they do with everything, without the need for a government- this would include deterrents for EVIL MEGACORP and their baby-eating mercenary Nazis. Despite what you think, people don't need a government to herd them about because they're weak, mindless sheep- they can take care of themselves on their own.

You mean they'ld form a "social contract"? They'ld band together w/ a set of rules to maintain order amongst themselves and develop a society? How would all these individuals organize things? They'ld form a government.

Thank you for proving my point.

He should pay taxes for the government services he took advantage of (that's direct use, none of that "oh, we provide the greater framework at the special offer price of only 1.9 million dollars!").

If he stayed in his house and didn't use government services anymore, he shouldn't pay taxes.

We should be working harder to get a "user pays" government happening anyways.

Regarding security...can anyone tell me what the marginal cost to the government is of protecting one more family?

So because you can't "see" it means it doesn't exist?

Why are you twisting my words to make your point? It's rather annoying. I'm saying that the social contract isn't a contract, because it forces people into staying in a union that they may not support. There was nothing about "seeing" anything.

You're just rampling now. If people didn't accept it, then the laws get pushed to be changed. Since the overwhelming majority of "current people" accept the standards, then they're not being "inflicted".

Do they accept it, or do they not care? Either way, it's stupid that the government forces people to have to accept a certain currency when there are alternatives.

Obviously.

Do you usually debate by fabricating traits about your opponent and using them as your evidence? It sure seems so, and it's a little pathetic.

You can take whatever you want. That doesn't mean others have to accept it. So you don't decide what to use when you buy things, the other in the party decides what they'll accept. Try again.

Hey, I bet you didn't know this, but I don't have to accept anything either. So I do decide what currency gets used in my transactions. See, in an exchange, both parties decide what gets used in the transaction, so... they both decide what they use as a means of exchange! I'm sure it's shocking to you.

More lack of historical knowledge. There were a lot more monopolies than just the railroads. Try again. Microsoft designed their products so others couldn't be used w/ theirs and you couldn't get rid of what they wanted w/ it. Coming from one who demands "choice", that seems an odd line to take. I never said gov't was "insulated" from business. You seem to be good at making things up. Are you trying to say that Utility companies would voluntarily supply people off the main track w/o charging exorbitant fees unless the Gov't said so? You think they'ld care about strip mining or deforestation?

I do know that there were more monopolies, oh arrogant one- I never said otherwise. Yet again, you choose to twist your opponent's debates to suit your side of the argument, even if the twist is nonsenical. Microsoft asked in its licensing agreement that their product be included, and the PC companies would accept because their consumers showed a preference for having the free software instead of having to pay for something else. So it is actually choice. And even though you may not say outright that government is insulated, you continually imply that it is somehow some altruistic bulwark against the depredations of Corporate Evil(TM) that is never influenced by big business. And these utility companies are government cronies too, granted monopoly for the benefit of themselves and the state without competition. If I can choose which internet service I use, I sure as hell can choose which power company I can use without the government getting in the way.

And your policy would just create lots more gangs to have to deal w/.

Probably not, since the people don't really need a government. Plus, we'd get rid of the biggest gang of all.

You mean they'ld form a "social contract"? They'ld band together w/ a set of rules to maintain order amongst themselves and develop a society? How would all these individuals organize things? They'ld form a government.

Thank you for proving my point.

Nope, wrong, because social contract is not a contract, and they agree to the protections of their company (unlike the protection racket that is government.) If they don't like it, they can switch to another, and they don't have to renounce anything or move anywhere else, unlike your precious social contract lie. They wouldn't need to form a government, because they could choose what happens by their own actions instead of having to surrender their choice to someone else. They would be their own government.

Why are you twisting my words to make your point? It's rather annoying. I'm saying that the social contract isn't a contract, because it forces people into staying in a union that they may not support. There was nothing about "seeing" anything.

So leave the union. That's your option.



Do they accept it, or do they not care? Either way, it's stupid that the government forces people to have to accept a certain currency when there are alternatives.

You "feel" it's stupid. You find alternatives that keep a nation going w/ an international market w/o collapsing.



Do you usually debate by fabricating traits about your opponent and using them as your evidence? It sure seems so, and it's a little pathetic.

You claimed that a gold trade would work. Since that form of currency has already been shown to be unstable, you must be talking out your ass.



Hey, I bet you didn't know this, but I don't have to accept anything either. So I do decide what currency gets used in my transactions. See, in an exchange, both parties decide what gets used in the transaction, so... they both decide what they use as a means of exchange! I'm sure it's shocking to you.

And if the person has what you need but you don't have what he wants, sucks to be you. It's nice to have a universally accepted one that both parties (like the majority of the US population).



I do know that there were more monopolies, oh arrogant one- I never said otherwise. Yet again, you choose to twist your opponent's debates to suit your side of the argument, even if the twist is nonsenical. Microsoft asked in its licensing agreement that their product be included, and the PC companies would accept because their consumers showed a preference for having the free software instead of having to pay for something else. So it is actually choice.

No, You obviously haven't done much reading on the Microsoft situation. Not only couldn't you remove software you didn't want, most of the other options wouldn't work w/ thiers. Try again.


And even though you may not say outright that government is insulated, you continually imply that it is somehow some altruistic bulwark against the depredations of Corporate Evil(TM) that is never influenced by big business.

Nice that you accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then you do the exact same thing. Try again.

And these utility companies are government cronies too, granted monopoly for the benefit of themselves and the state without competition. If I can choose which internet service I use, I sure as hell can choose which power company I can use without the government getting in the way.

Really? You obviously don't understand much about the power grid. If there are no mandated lines to your house, you'll need to pay to have them installed and provided for. You keep assuming you're going to have a choice in the matter. There's no evidence of that at all. None of the deregulation schemes have provided choice at all.


Probably not, since the people don't really need a government. Plus, we'd get rid of the biggest gang of all.

In your opinion. Of course you keep ignoring the fact that the gangs would take over the streets of the cities ( a form of social contract and government) and the corporations would take over anything they wanted (another form).



Nope, wrong, because social contract is not a contract, and they agree to the protections of their company (unlike the protection racket that is government.) If they don't like it, they can switch to another, and they don't have to renounce anything or move anywhere else, unlike your precious social contract lie. They wouldn't need to form a government, because they could choose what happens by their own actions instead of having to surrender their choice to someone else. They would be their own government.

If there are other options. You keep making that assumption. You seem to beleive that a corporate controlled area that people "contract" w/ would be any different.

You just claimed that people would join together for a common purpose (self-defense, trade, etc.) They would decide on accepted currencies, defense, social order, justice, etc. That's forming a SOCIAL CONTRACT and would create a form of GOVERNMENT to get things done.

Your mythical anarchist utopia is just that, a myth.

If he stayed in his house and didn't use government services anymore, he shouldn't pay taxes.

Well, that would require him to have no legal rights whatsoever, not use any money produced by the United States government, and live somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.

The man should just pay the goddam tax money like everyone else.

Most people already do get away with it. I don't think putting this guy away will have much of a deterrent effect. It has to be done for political reasons, sure, but it's not going to affect nationwide trends, especially since interest is probably low outside New Hampshire.

I knew this person that went as far as renouncing his citizenship to not pay his taxes. As far as I know he is still walking around and not paying taxes. However he can not get a job due to no social security number. Why bother just use the tax laws to get as much of a break as possible and pay your due. Government doesn't operate for free.

So leave the union. That's your option.

I'd love to secede, but I'm afraid that they'd lay siege to me... just like this guy.

You "feel" it's stupid. You find alternatives that keep a nation going w/ an international market w/o collapsing.

Yes, because there existed absolutely no international market before the unbacked dollar existed. :rolleyes:

You claimed that a gold trade would work. Since that form of currency has already been shown to be unstable, you must be talking out your ass.

And the rapidly inflating dollar that removes the value of saving through its rapid depreciation is comparatively stable? The value of gold is relatively stable, in that it cannot be simply printed out en masse like so many currencies have. This better satisfies the store of value (isn't depreciated rapidly), unit of account (prices stay relatively stable, and decline as productivity declines), and medium of exchange (you don't need to transfer your gold to some other currency.)

And if the person has what you need but you don't have what he wants, sucks to be you. It's nice to have a universally accepted one that both parties (like the majority of the US population).

You describe a barter economy, which is not what I'm advocating. Rather, I advocate a gold standard, which was the naturally selected currency due to its many useful characteristics. This would be the universally accepted currency, unlike the unbacked dollar that was imposed in order to help the government in its spending orgies and constant accumulation of debt.

No, You obviously haven't done much reading on the Microsoft situation. Not only couldn't you remove software you didn't want, most of the other options wouldn't work w/ thiers. Try again.

If I, too, read only fantasy by government apologists, you might be right. As it is, though, you aren't- Microsoft did no thing different from any other company, but rather made it so that their competitors would include their Internet Explorer on their computers for free, which threatened Microsoft's competition by lowering prices. It was only by political opportunism, and not for any legitimate reason, that Microsoft was attacked. Try reading Pride Before the Fall, which excellently describes how the government colluded with the rivals of Microsoft to bring it down in order to benefit themselves, and not because of any love for the market.

Nice that you accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then you do the exact same thing. Try again.

Well, because you ARE putting words in my mouth, and I can't help but comment on your extreme naivete- it's interesting that you are accusing me of things that you're doing. Next thing I know, you'll be accusing me of using smartass phrases at the end of each of my points in some vain attempt to be cute.

Really? You obviously don't understand much about the power grid. If there are no mandated lines to your house, you'll need to pay to have them installed and provided for. You keep assuming you're going to have a choice in the matter. There's no evidence of that at all. None of the deregulation schemes have provided choice at all.

Did it ever occur to you that the deregulation, being made by the state, was possibly done in order to benefit the state and its cronies, and not because of free-market principles? Probably not. In a free market of utilities, people would be able to hook up their power lines to different generators of different companies, just like they can with internet connection.

In your opinion. Of course you keep ignoring the fact that the gangs would take over the streets of the cities ( a form of social contract and government) and the corporations would take over anything they wanted (another form).

Yes, yes, and blood would rain from the sky and the earth would explode and children would cry. In actuality, though, without the state to back them up the possibility for aggression would be far reduced, and the people would have the ability to resist the aggressions of others- unlike now, where if you resist taxes you have your house laid siege to.

If there are other options. You keep making that assumption. You seem to beleive that a corporate controlled area that people "contract" w/ would be any different.

Ugh, it's not a "corporate controlled area." The people live on their own, and they contract with various different protection agencies, creating a mosaic of houses covered by different protection agencies. There would be no base for massive statist expropriation, seeing the diffusion that would occur as well as the lack of the state's expropriatory powers.

You just claimed that people would join together for a common purpose (self-defense, trade, etc.) They would decide on accepted currencies, defense, social order, justice, etc. That's forming a SOCIAL CONTRACT and would create a form of GOVERNMENT to get things done.

Yes, but they would do it spontaneously and be able to refuse to act if they didn't want to, whereas in a statist government their currency, protection agency, etc. is forced on them. Therefore, there is no government social contract, since people are able to form actual contracts with one another and do as they wish.

Your mythical anarchist utopia is just that, a myth.

Right. Because you said so.

Reading some of the more recent updates on the story, Im really thinking he's going to end up winning this thing. The cheif will not risk his boys life over a tax evader (He said he's not moving his men.), He's got 20 people in there, and he's got great support.

I seem to be the only one who brought up the NH point. Is everyone else aware of the connection there? The libertarians been trying to make paradise there by controlling the state political structure by pure political immigration. Its been working, and any state official who orders the attack on this man will likely not be back next election.

heres the plan from four years back
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30714FA3A550C748EDDA90994DB404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fL%2fLibertarian%20Party (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30714FA3A550C748EDDA90994DB404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fL%2fLibertarian%20Party)

Exactly. Not to mention that he used the taxpayer-funded postal service to shuttle his wealth around and hide it from the government.

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned it up to now, but I've seen a few references to this. I think as an ex-post office worker (sorta) and someone who still knows people who work in the post office, I should clear this up.

http://www.usps.com/communications/organization/postalfacts.htm

We receive no tax dollars from the federal government for our operations. We are a self-supporting agency, using the revenue from the sales of postage and postage-related products to pay expenses.

The postal service is not taxpayer funded.

I'd love to secede, but I'm afraid that they'd lay siege to me... just like this guy.

Because you'd be seceding territory that doesn't belong to you. Go found Sealand mk II if you want your own nation.



Did it ever occur to you that the deregulation, being made by the state, was possibly done in order to benefit the state and its cronies, and not because of free-market principles? Probably not. In a free market of utilities, people would be able to hook up their power lines to different generators of different companies, just like they can with internet connection.


Your phone lines were put up by the government. Without them, you'd have no internet connection. Your power lines were also put up by the government. Without them, you'd have no power. As with your water pipes. And your roads. Street lights. The list goes on.

No corporation would ever bother paying for something like street lights or roads simply because they couldn't charge people for it in a manner that costs lest than what they could get. How do you solve the free rider issue in that system? You can't. Thereby, they won't build that stuff.


Yes, yes, and blood would rain from the sky and the earth would explode and children would cry. In actuality, though, without the state to back them up the possibility for aggression would be far reduced, and the people would have the ability to resist the aggressions of others- unlike now, where if you resist taxes you have your house laid siege to.

Observe Afghanistan. With the government as powerless as it is, there might as well be no government. In the power vacuum, we have warlords who enforce by might of arms their territory. If you resist, you die.

Without the government, the story would be the same. Gangs would stockpile weapons, supplies and ammo and rule by force. Corporations would just be the more organized, better supplied and better trained gangs of the lot.


Ugh, it's not a "corporate controlled area." The people live on their own, and they contract with various different protection agencies, creating a mosaic of houses covered by different protection agencies.

Hah, you think it'd work that way wouldn't you? The closest equivalence would be the mafiaso of New York in the 30s and protection rackets. It wasn't a mosaic of protected zones, but a damn pie slice up. With corporate security providers, it'd be the same.


There would be no base for massive statist expropriation, seeing the diffusion that would occur as well as the lack of the state's expropriatory powers.


No. The biggest corporation with the biggest private army would create that massive statist expropriation you seem to think won't happen. Why not? At best, they'd divide the territory up with their biggest rivals rather than fighting it out and wasting resources.


Yes, but they would do it spontaneously and be able to refuse to act if they didn't want to, whereas in a statist government their currency, protection agency, etc. is forced on them.

If societal behavior is any indication, refusal to comply would result in being ejected by said society. Hope you packed your bags then.

Crazy anarchists. You people never seem to realize that humans tend towards group think, and outsiders end up being removed.

Hey, it's a revolution! He's already got the barricade, all he needs now is some more supporters and he has a small chance at success. This remind you of a play, by any chance?



cookie to anyone who knows what play this is from, two to the person who writes the next verse.


Les Mis, of course.

Will you join in my crusade
Who will drink beer and load for me
Beyond the barricade there is a jail cell just for me
Now come join my fight and we'll all get ourselves on TV!

(Where are my cookies?)

Because you'd be seceding territory that doesn't belong to you. Go found Sealand mk II if you want your own nation.

How do I not own my house and my car and everything else? Certainly the government didn't buy it.

Your phone lines were put up by the government. Without them, you'd have no internet connection. Your power lines were also put up by the government. Without them, you'd have no power. As with your water pipes. And your roads. Street lights. The list goes on.

Instead, I'd pay a company to make it for me, without having to be bullied into it by taxes.

No corporation would ever bother paying for something like street lights or roads simply because they couldn't charge people for it in a manner that costs lest than what they could get. How do you solve the free rider issue in that system? You can't. Thereby, they won't build that stuff.

Free-rider is a myth to excuse government intervention. To allow for better night-time protection so as to reduce their risks, security companies would install or encourage companies and people to install streetlights. So, you can and they will.

Observe Afghanistan. With the government as powerless as it is, there might as well be no government. In the power vacuum, we have warlords who enforce by might of arms their territory. If you resist, you die.

Those warlords are statists in their own right, wanting to impose their own government. It's just a matter of scale.

Without the government, the story would be the same. Gangs would stockpile weapons, supplies and ammo and rule by force. Corporations would just be the more organized, better supplied and better trained gangs of the lot.

Er, no, because if the government was removed peacefully instead of being broken apart by mini-states, there would be the opportunity for people to come together to protect their interests through voluntary exchange.

Hah, you think it'd work that way wouldn't you? The closest equivalence would be the mafiaso of New York in the 30s and protection rackets. It wasn't a mosaic of protected zones, but a damn pie slice up. With corporate security providers, it'd be the same.

I was thinking more along the lines of Iceland, where people did live in what were effectively mosaics of protection, and all funded through voluntary exchange. Sure, there were fights, but they were nothing compared to the mega-wars that plagued Europe at the same time with their more powerful states.

No. The biggest corporation with the biggest private army would create that massive statist expropriation you seem to think won't happen. Why not? At best, they'd divide the territory up with their biggest rivals rather than fighting it out and wasting resources.

How is this so? Why would a protection agency risk its capital for a high risk, when they could make more money just being peaceful and getting their money voluntarily through premiums- especially if other protection agencies will destroy them if they attempt aggression.

If societal behavior is any indication, refusal to comply would result in being ejected by said society. Hope you packed your bags then.

How so? If people don't want to deal with you, they shouldn't have to deal with you. You have no right over their actions. If they attack you, then you have the right to punish them for it.

Crazy anarchists. You people never seem to realize that humans tend towards group think, and outsiders end up being removed.

As long as there is no aggression, I am fine with it. They should not have to associate with outsiders if they don't want to.

How do I not own my house and my car and everything else? Certainly the government didn't buy it.

You do not own the land. You own the right to live on the land, but the government owns the land itself.

You do not own the land. You own the right to live on the land, but the government owns the land itself.

Are you sure about that? Sure, the streets and roads leading up to it I would think are owned by the government, but if I buy land, I have a deed that says I own that land.

I'd love to secede, but I'm afraid that they'd lay siege to me... just like this guy.

After he'ld been using public services w/o paying for them for ten years, illegally transfering money, and threatening the police.



Yes, because there existed absolutely no international market before the unbacked dollar existed. :rolleyes:

Using recognized currencies by Gov'ts and social contracts. Also roads, trade infrastructure, etc. maintained and set up priarily by Gov'ts.

And the rapidly inflating dollar that removes the value of saving through its rapid depreciation is comparatively stable? The value of gold is relatively stable, in that it cannot be simply printed out en masse like so many currencies have. This better satisfies the store of value (isn't depreciated rapidly), unit of account (prices stay relatively stable, and decline as productivity declines), and medium of exchange (you don't need to transfer your gold to some other currency.)

Compared to the gold standard, yes. Do some readingon why they went away from it.



You describe a barter economy, which is not what I'm advocating. Rather, I advocate a gold standard, which was the naturally selected currency due to its many useful characteristics. This would be the universally accepted currency, unlike the unbacked dollar that was imposed in order to help the government in its spending orgies and constant accumulation of debt.

Read some history.



If I, too, read only fantasy by government apologists, you might be right. As it is, though, you aren't- Microsoft did no thing different from any other company, but rather made it so that their competitors would include their Internet Explorer on their computers for free, which threatened Microsoft's competition by lowering prices. It was only by political opportunism, and not for any legitimate reason, that Microsoft was attacked. Try reading Pride Before the Fall, which excellently describes how the government colluded with the rivals of Microsoft to bring it down in order to benefit themselves, and not because of any love for the market.

That's nice. Now try reading some actual facts of the matter and how it just wasn't the US Gov't that brought cases against them for trying to monopolize the market.



Well, because you ARE putting words in my mouth, and I can't help but comment on your extreme naivete- it's interesting that you are accusing me of things that you're doing. Next thing I know, you'll be accusing me of using smartass phrases at the end of each of my points in some vain attempt to be cute.

Translation: You're just making crap up on history and what people "might" do w/o anything to back it up so you try and push your fantasies onto me. Gotcha.



Did it ever occur to you that the deregulation, being made by the state, was possibly done in order to benefit the state and its cronies, and not because of free-market principles? Probably not. In a free market of utilities, people would be able to hook up their power lines to different generators of different companies, just like they can with internet connection.

Who owns those lines? Where are all these mythical companies? Internet =/ power utilities. You seem to think they'ld come out of the woodwork and survive. Nothing you've presented supports that. You also apparently have no idea how expensive it is to run power lines, purchase/maintain fire fighting equipment, build and support roads, etc. Where does all this infrastructure come from? Who's maintaining it. Are all these happy individuals going to donate enough to keep it up? Who's going to organize/supervise the work?



Yes, yes, and blood would rain from the sky and the earth would explode and children would cry. In actuality, though, without the state to back them up the possibility for aggression would be far reduced, and the people would have the ability to resist the aggressions of others- unlike now, where if you resist taxes you have your house laid siege to.

Right, like all those African countries involved in wars w/ weak gov'ts, Yemen, etc.

Ugh, it's not a "corporate controlled area." The people live on their own, and they contract with various different protection agencies, creating a mosaic of houses covered by different protection agencies. There would be no base for massive statist expropriation, seeing the diffusion that would occur as well as the lack of the state's expropriatory powers.

You've thought this fantasy through. Too bad none of it has any real life examples.

Yes, but they would do it spontaneously and be able to refuse to act if they didn't want to, whereas in a statist government their currency, protection agency, etc. is forced on them. Therefore, there is no government social contract, since people are able to form actual contracts with one another and do as they wish.

Yet you've just admitted to the early creation of one. Think people would be allowed to move into those areas that have been established and not be "forced" to use local currency or follow local ordinances? Think they'll allow Joe Schmuck to use the roads the've been keeping up w/o pitching in before they throw him out? Think you'll be able to afford that internet after whatever phone company owns the lines is now charging even more for the use since they also have to now pay to keep up the roads, etc. That's assuming you can afford the $10,000+ to have lines run to your out of the way country home. Keep dreaming.



Right. Because you said so.

And history backs me up. Not you.

This thread reminds me of this:

http://www.satirewire.com/news/0106/dream.shtml

maybe satirewire.com is right in a way....

Right. Because you said so.

Not because he said so, because history and reason bear it out clearly.

Not because he said so, because history and reason bear it out clearly.

Remember though, it's not what people/corporations/Gov't have done and are doing, it's what Greill believes they will do.

People won't form social organizations that follow certain laws, ordinances or customs and keep people out who don't follow said because that's never happened before in history, has it?

Corporations would never beat down competition, destroy the environment, abuse people by profiteering when there's noone controlling their actions because that's never happened before in history, has it?

Gov'ts would never maintain an infrastructure that allows for continued trade/economic growth because that's never happened before in history, has it?

You do not own the land. You own the right to live on the land, but the government owns the land itself.

This is completly wrong. Unless you live in Cuba.-

Remember though, it's not what people/corporations/Gov't have done and are doing, it's what Greill believes they will do.

People won't form social organizations that follow certain laws, ordinances or customs and keep people out who don't follow said because that's never happened before in history, has it?

Corporations would never beat down competition, destroy the environment, abuse people by profiteering when there's noone controlling their actions because that's never happened before in history, has it?

Gov'ts would never maintain an infrastructure that allows for continued trade/economic growth because that's never happened before in history, has it?


Indeed indeed, the whole of human history is some illusion perpetrated by the evil force of "heirarchy."

Heirarchy is almost supernatural in its ability to make people behave contrary to their real desire which is to live in non-heirarchical cooperative anarchy peace.

If only the people would stop paying taxes and the government could wilt away, taking with it the sinister magic heirarchy!

Then, with the evil heirarchy hoodoo sufficiently wilted, happy anarchyland would be established, and people would just get along.

Remember, history is a LIE made up by heirarchy to trick us all into thinking that people arent naturally good, peaceful, selfless, trustworthy and cooperative!

The central, essential and distinguishing nature of government can be stated simply in a single sentence:

Government is the protection of the weak from the strong.

How do I not own my house and my car and everything else? Certainly the government didn't buy it.

You seem to have problems understanding what the word territory means. The land your house sits on doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government. You technically "rent" land from the government when you buy it.


Instead, I'd pay a company to make it for me, without having to be bullied into it by taxes.

I would dearly love to see you pay for telephone lines, water pipes, roads and street lights. You'd go bankrupt before then.


Free-rider is a myth to excuse government intervention. To allow for better night-time protection so as to reduce their risks, security companies would install or encourage companies and people to install streetlights. So, you can and they will.

What is a myth is that corporate interests would install streetlights for the average house owner. In fact, that's a delusion. For premises under their direct ownership perhaps. But definitely not for suburbs, residential zones and most areas that benefit from it.

As for free-rider being a myth, that particular idea deserves as much scorn as the idea that the earth is flat. How do you charge someone for the benefit of street lights? Coin op? Nope, someone else would benefit without paying too. Community rent? According to your world view, someone would refuse, and could still benefit.


Those warlords are statists in their own right, wanting to impose their own government. It's just a matter of scale.


So how would this differ from street gangs wanting to impose control? Or corporations for that matter? After all, you maximize profits when people do what you tell them to do and buy what you tell them to buy.


Er, no, because if the government was removed peacefully instead of being broken apart by mini-states, there would be the opportunity for people to come together to protect their interests through voluntary exchange.


I laugh at your naivety. Even if the government dissolved itself, people would still want to create controlled scenarios where they can maximize benefit/control over their particular territories. There is as much chance of this Utopian anarchy arising as there is of winning a state lottery six times consecutively.


I was thinking more along the lines of Iceland, where people did live in what were effectively mosaics of protection, and all funded through voluntary exchange. Sure, there were fights, but they were nothing compared to the mega-wars that plagued Europe at the same time with their more powerful states.

The only reason why they weren't on as large a scale was because the resources they had on hand were more limited. If you have more resources, you field bigger armies to either take other people's resources or protect your own.

And the fact that wars did occur proves that for an utopia, your anarchy still suffers from strife.


How is this so? Why would a protection agency risk its capital for a high risk, when they could make more money just being peaceful and getting their money voluntarily through premiums- especially if other protection agencies will destroy them if they attempt aggression.

You might as well ask why big companies usually buy out their rivals and create joint partnerships to create monopolies. Because monopolies guarantee the best profits. If a company is big enough that crushing them is out of the question, then it is best to ally with them, and cut up the pie.

So yes, the corporations would have peace with one another. But they'd have dictatorship levels of control over you're average person.


How so? If people don't want to deal with you, they shouldn't have to deal with you. You have no right over their actions. If they attack you, then you have the right to punish them for it.

Ever heard of mob violence? Unless you happen to have a completely loyal mercenary army somewhere, in which case you're probably heading said society as a warlord. Unless you comply within certain specifications of a society, you will ultimately be ejected from it. Especially if this society is self regulating.

But that of course, is all moot because it'd be a corporate theocracy by then. And then you'd better comply, or you'd simply have your assets liquidated, and be forcefully ejected from the premises.

Power is what makes the law anywhere, and corporations would have the most power in such power vacuums.


As long as there is no aggression, I am fine with it. They should not have to associate with outsiders if they don't want to.

Removed with a vengeance usually. Unless outsiders were part of an overwhelming army.

What an interesting philosophical experiment! Tax only exists when it s enforcd and until they enforce it, it doesnt exist for him!

On another note, athough I think we are taxed far too much these days, he coulda vented his frustrations other ways. Whatever happened to the spirited debate? In any case he atleast pay the government for what services he used and then continue to hole up to fight for the rest.

Are you sure about that? Sure, the streets and roads leading up to it I would think are owned by the government, but if I buy land, I have a deed that says I own that land.

Well, here in Denmark you can own the land that your house is on. But technically, you don't own it as much as you lease it. And if the government needs the land they can forcefully evict you from it.

So in reality, you don't own the land as such. The land belongs to Denmark (controlled by the Danish government) - you merely buy the right to use it for a while.

I would assume that it's somewhat similar in America.

I would assume that it's somewhat similar in America.

The government can take your land here if they can show that they need it, but otherwise, you actually do own it. Possibly the mineral and water rights and the airspace up to a point in some areas.

Not that that matters in this case.. owning the land makes no difference if you're a fugitive on it.

Well, that would require him to have no legal rights whatsoever, not use any money produced by the United States government, and live somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.
Which neatly slots into the second question I posed: What is the marginal cost of providing these services to him?

I'd put forward that it's pretty damn close to zero. So in fairness, that should be the tax he oughta pay.

Of course, government sadly is a monopoly and thus overcharges us for the services it provides to a ridiculous extent. If we weren't so used to it, we'd be burning down their funny-looking little buildings as a weekly event.

Which neatly slots into the second question I posed: What is the marginal cost of providing these services to him?

I'd put forward that it's pretty damn close to zero. So in fairness, that should be the tax he oughta pay.

How can an adequate military be provides when all those who consume it are charged zero dollars? Should pacifists be reimbursed?

Have you given up on your flat-income tax for use-fees? No more vouchers for education or healthcare?

Nice try. What I actually said was, "Barricading oneself in a house and refusing to pay taxes that one legally owes is not a realistic option and tends to diminish one's moral stance." Next time quote all of what I said, okay?

Okay, so look a few years earlier to the start of the American Revolution. There were a bunch of armed men that didn't want to pay 'legally' enacted taxes.

Okay, so look a few years earlier to the start of the American Revolution. There were a bunch of armed men that didn't want to pay 'legally' enacted taxes.

Yet they weren't considered "legal" as there was no representation for the colonists in the decision to enact said taxes.

Mr. NH had legal representation. These also weren't newly established taxes but long, recognized ones.

Tax is nothing more than government sanctioned theft, so yes he is in the right.

Tax is nothing more than government sanctioned theft, so yes he is in the right.


So stop using roads, pay the utility companies about $30K for the gov't mandated services, stop using federally recognized money, never call the fire dept or police, don't send your kids to public school, etc. Then we'll talk about "theft".

So stop using roads, pay the utility companies about $30K for the gov't mandated services, stop using federally recognized money, never call the fire dept or police, don't send your kids to public school, etc. Then we'll talk about "theft".

Ok assume he even does this. Does it really change the situation legally?

Tax is nothing more than government sanctioned theft, so yes he is in the right.

You can't use the roads, shop or work at companies that use the roads, use health care, be defended by the police or military or shop or work at companies that are defended by the police or military, go to school, or do anything else which at all derives benefit from our first-rate country, because our advantages are bought with our taxes, and if you appropriate the gains of those advantages without paying, you are a thief.

Okay, so look a few years earlier to the start of the American Revolution. There were a bunch of armed men that didn't want to pay 'legally' enacted taxes.

"No taxes without representation" was a slogan of the Revolution. This guy had representation. If you didn't notice, this guy didn't have any problem using the services payed for by others' tax dollars. Hell, he'd probabably go on welfare if that wasn't means-tested.

Les Mis, of course.

Will you join in my crusade
Who will drink beer and load for me
Beyond the barricade there is a jail cell just for me
Now come join my fight and we'll all get ourselves on TV!

(Where are my cookies?)

I still want my cookies. *pout*

I still want my cookies. *pout*

You can have some of mine.

You can't use the roads, shop or work at companies that use the roads, use health care, be defended by the police or military or shop or work at companies that are defended by the police or military, go to school, or do anything else which at all derives benefit from our first-rate country, because our advantages are bought with our taxes, and if you appropriate the gains of those advantages without paying, you are a thief.

Being an anarcho-individualist, I happen to believe that society would supply those things anyway, simply because all individuals need roads and hospitals. Therefore individuals would co-operate of their own free will to construct those services for the benefit of all (simply because the benefit of all would be to the benefit of the individual in this particular case). We do not need the State to coerce us into building them nor do we need the State to steal the fruits of our labour to build them on our behalf.

I support the individual concerned because he is asserting his individual sovereignty against Statist oppression. He is claiming the fruits of his labour as his own and is challenging the right of the State to appropriate those fruits from him. The State has no right to violate his sovereignty in this manner (or indeed in any other manner).

You can't use the roads, shop or work at companies that use the roads, use health care, be defended by the police or military or shop or work at companies that are defended by the police or military, go to school, or do anything else which at all derives benefit from our first-rate country, because our advantages are bought with our taxes, and if you appropriate the gains of those advantages without paying, you are a thief.

Problem with that is, he's payed all his local taxes, its just the federal ones he's turned down.

How can an adequate military be provides when all those who consume it are charged zero dollars?
Not exactly zero dollars, but something very low. If every citizen in the US pays a thousand dollars a year, that's 300 billion dollars. That's plenty enough to provide external security.

Problem is that the government doesn't make that distinction. They tack unreasonable demands onto reasonable ones. I believe most people would pay for police and military protection. I'm not sure most people would pay for all the extra bullshit if it didn't happen under the threat of physical violence.

Should pacifists be reimbursed?
Not if they're using the service (which, being within the borders of the state, they sorta do by default).

Have you given up on your flat-income tax for use-fees? No more vouchers for education or healthcare?
Flat income tax with use fees.

The goal should be to get as close as possible to a user pays system. Only things that can't be arranged that way should be handled by a flat fee.

My criticism was aimed at you saying he should pay for the marginal cost he inflicts when the army.
That's how goods ideally should be priced. Unfortunately, as I said, this market is characterised by a coercive monopoly.

Any good libertarian would say they're using it, but there also being coerced into paying it.
And they'd be correct, of course. But that's the problem with the nature of a public good like this. Because it's non-excludable, if the user is to pay for it, chances are he or she will need to be made to.

Not exactly zero dollars, but something very low. If every citizen in the US pays a thousand dollars a year, that's 300 billion dollars. That's plenty enough to provide external security.

My criticism was aimed at you saying he should pay for the marginal cost he inflicts when the army. That is pretty close to zero. Adding another person inflicts little to no cost to the rest of society in consumption of national defense. Also, poll taxes are very unpopular politically.

Problem is that the government doesn't make that distinction. They tack unreasonable demands onto reasonable ones. I believe most people would pay for police and military protection. I'm not sure most people would pay for all the extra bullshit if it didn't happen under the threat of physical violence.

I find that reason is often lacking when it come to explaining humans.


Not if they're using the service (which, being within the borders of the state, they sorta do by default).

Any good libertarian would say they're using it, but there also being coerced into paying it.

That's how goods ideally should be priced. Unfortunately, as I said, this market is characterised by a coercive monopoly.

Except that its pretty much zero for everybody. A thousand is far too much for marginal cost inflicted by any one person, but if everyone only payed their marginal cost then there wouldn't be enough money to fund an adequate defense.

And they'd be correct, of course. But that's the problem with the nature of a public good like this. Because it's non-excludable, if the user is to pay for it, chances are he or she will need to be made to.

So coercion is always bad, pragmatically speaking?

Pity. I would stand by this man if it weren't for the "good ole tax free colony aint illegal" attitude.

I too like pudding. I voted for it.

Pudding FTW!

I support the individual concerned because he is asserting his individual sovereignty against Statist oppression. He is claiming the fruits of his labour as his own and is challenging the right of the State to appropriate those fruits from him. The State has no right to violate his sovereignty in this manner (or indeed in any other manner).

The individual concerned had no problem using the fruits of others' labor when he used the state's services.

You can't use health care

Why not? Health care is privately-owned.

The point remains though.

Which neatly slots into the second question I posed: What is the marginal cost of providing these services to him?

Technically, every bit of legal tender he owns.

I still want my cookies. *pout*


sorry, didn't see your post. *gives two cookies*

Being an anarcho-individualist, I happen to believe that society would supply those things anyway, simply because all individuals need roads and hospitals.

Being a realist, I can tell you that's not going to happen without some form of government. Society tends towards order and rule. Thereby, society tends towards government.

Besides, no major project would ever work without some higher form of organization only found in large corporations or governments.


Therefore individuals would co-operate of their own free will to construct those services for the benefit of all (simply because the benefit of all would be to the benefit of the individual in this particular case).

Not all individuals would. You'd still have people who wouldn't pay a cent. And still use the stuff. And then the idea would spread. Then nobody would pay for these amenities but still demand them. People are inherently selfish.


We do not need the State to coerce us into building them nor do we need the State to steal the fruits of our labour to build them on our behalf.

Unfortunately for you, the government is the only one that can usually enforce a fair level of takings for these amenities.

Except that its pretty much zero for everybody. A thousand is far too much for marginal cost inflicted by any one person, but if everyone only payed their marginal cost then there wouldn't be enough money to fund an adequate defense.
Sorta. There is a fixed part of the costs and a variable part. The fixed part would have to be covered by everyone pretty much equally, the variable part should be depending on usage.

And my usage of security services should be given by the cost I specifically incur to the government in security spending, correct?

That is, in fact, not exactly zero, but almost. Somewhere in the area of a handful of dollars a year, perhaps.

Unfortunately the position the government holds in the market sorta blows that out of all proportions and so it charges us thousands and thousands of dollars.

So coercion is always bad, pragmatically speaking?
No. Morally it is a second issue alltogether (though most people will see the utilitarian reasons for why it might be acceptable sometimes).

In the case we are talking about, the citizen takes advantage of a service and then won't pay for it. Some coercion may be necessary to make the user pay if it is indeed impossible to exclude him from usage.

Even nicer would be for him to be able to choose whether or not to actually engage in usage, but that's not possible at the moment. I'm not a believer in a free market for security services, because I don't think humans are rational and considerate enough to pull it off. And because I don't see how pricing is gonna work.

So even if I can see the point of coercion being used (even though I don't like it) to make the user pay for some public goods, that justification goes out the window if the coercive power is being abused, as it clearly is in our modern world.

Technically, every bit of legal tender he owns.
:confused:

Are you really working that hard to make it look like the government is putting in any special effort whatsoever into protecting him specifically? The government wouldn't even know he existed if it wasn't for him being a source for their porkbarrel-allowance.

Just declare the guy an "enemy combatant"
If he's still there after a few more days (not taken out by the well-regulated militia,) bomb his house and kill them all.
Citizen, you say? Big woop.

Being an anarcho-individualist, I happen to believe that society would supply those things anyway, simply because all individuals need roads and hospitals. Therefore individuals would co-operate of their own free will to construct those services for the benefit of all (simply because the benefit of all would be to the benefit of the individual in this particular case). We do not need the State to coerce us into building them nor do we need the State to steal the fruits of our labour to build them on our behalf.

Setting up this system of government essentially regresses society back to hunter gatherer days. Do you REALLY want to go back to third world villages with dirt roads and no interstate highways for food and product transportation? Without government who builds the Hoover dam or decides that its even a priority? You think "private" companies would do this? Who gets to decide who wins the contracts to do the work? Who decides how much it should cost and how long it should take? If only 85% of the people agree to pay for a project that is critical to the health of the community but you need the investment of the entire community to make something work then what do you do? Tyranny of the minority? The government makes these decisions because as a collective most people are unsuited to make such choices. In essence the government is an amalgamation of what the people as a majority agree to do and it is the instrument in which it can most efficiently carry out those desires.

We have many places where governments do not provide services and people are left pretty much to thier own devices for survival. We call them third world countries and frankly they pretty much suck.

And being an "anarcho-invididualist" sounds like you gave the word hippie a buff and polish.

This dude knows how to play politics. He's got the feds by the balls. The feds won't assault the place for fear of another Ruby Ridge, and this dude probably has a years worth of supplies holed up there.

Now, lets see who blinks first.

Good point....... Plus, no matter if he is in the right or wrong, this makes for some very entertaining times ahead..........

...

We have many places where governments do not provide services and people are left pretty much to thier own devices for survival. We call them third world countries and frankly they pretty much suck.
As modern economies, they pretty much suck, yes. As repositories of culture, as reminders of what worked before and dreams of what might work without capitalism coming in and putting a cash value on everything, priceless.
"Third world" is an economic judgement. Judge ye not ...

And being an "anarcho-invididualist" sounds like you gave the word hippie a buff and polish.
There were anarcho-individualists long before there were hippies. And there's nothing wrong with either.

There were anarcho-individualists long before there were hippies. And there's nothing wrong with either.

Except there is in a Darwinian way. Thier methodology is ineffective and thus thier numbers and influence become less as modern economies expand and more people realize it benefits.

And the people who live in villages with dirt roads arnt looking back nostalgically about thier road that was still dirt 50 years ago. Given the choice they would take asphault in an instant. Modern people forget how convienent it is to get from point A to point B without having to stop to get your car/cart hauled out of a mudhole or three.

From the perspective of effective and teneble government, taxation is a necessity, and thus, the actions of the accused are illegal. However, removed from an occido-centric paradigm wherein the state and centralised government are an axiom, I see nothing wrong in his actions. The individual appears to "take" equally as little as he "gives", and thus, if he seeks independance, there is no compelling moral reason for his not to be afforded such a right.

From the perspective of effective and teneble government, taxation is a necessity, and thus, the actions of the accused are illegal. However, removed from an occido-centric paradigm wherein the state and centralised government are an axiom, I see nothing wrong in his actions. The individual appears to "take" equally as little as he "gives", and thus, if he seeks independance, there is no compelling moral reason for his not to be afforded such a right.

You make a very valid point, the man seems to be a self-contained state that doesnt much bother anybody, and Lord knows that huge house probably raises property value, so he is more than making up for not paying taxes.... I don't know much about federal fiscal laws, but it should be very interesting to see how this turns out...

You make a very valid point, the man seems to be a self-contained state that doesnt much bother anybody, and Lord knows that huge house probably raises property value, so he is more than making up for not paying taxes.... I don't know much about federal fiscal laws, but it should be very interesting to see how this turns out...

I fear the necessity for government to reinforce its own position and eminence above the population will induce a patently illogical settlement in favour of the government.

In any case, if people actually opened their eyes periodically, they might reaslise that government could quite readily be supplanted by self-regulation.

I fear the necessity for government to reinforce its own position and eminence above the population will induce a patently illogical settlement in favour of the government.

How so? The laws and punishments for tax evasion are clear and in writing and have been in existence in some form since the inception of the country. Its called the US legal code and the government is bound by law to follow it.

In any case, if people actually opened their eyes periodically, they might reaslise that government could quite readily be supplanted by self-regulation.

Been tried, its called a Socialist commune and except for rare small scale exceptions it has been near universally regarded as a failed system of government.

It's the Law of the Land, of course he should pay taxes. If our government doesn't enforce this attempt at tax evading, don't you think there would be a "domino effect" reaction by the People? Which then would ultimately destroy our Government. Taxes are necessary.

Except there is in a Darwinian way. Thier methodology is ineffective and thus thier numbers and influence become less as modern economies expand and more people realize it benefits.

And the people who live in villages with dirt roads arnt looking back nostalgically about thier road that was still dirt 50 years ago. Given the choice they would take asphault in an instant. Modern people forget how convienent it is to get from point A to point B without having to stop to get your car/cart hauled out of a mudhole or three.

QFT
The rest, QFBS.

QFT
The rest, QFBS.

Wow do you have actual points or do you just post capital letters?

Yeah, I've got points. But if you want a 'debate' you will choose one of the other online posters.

LMAO. I see. You have points, you just dont want to share them with us and instead would rather post capital letters that did absolutly zero to intelligently progress the conversation ? ok......



Edit after the time warp: LOL fair enough

No worries. I realized that real time debate was impossible so i was waiting for the system to chill out. Its like trying to yell at each other thru a mile long cave.

Yeah, sorry about that. Any kind of asynchronicity, I blame the "man in the middle" and go into denial. I know they do their best, only ...

My point: claiming his 'private property' as a soveriegn territory makes him a nation without diplomatic recognition by any other nation.
Without other nations recognizing his 'nation' he has no international rights. The US can declare his 'nation' or 'private property' a foreign nation and invade it, and no international law applies because his 'nation' has not been recognized by any other nation.

As to the argument that he is a citizen: he abrograted that when he stated his immunity (armed resistance?) to lawful arrest. That he claims to speak for his wife is irrelevant, since she is still a US citizen.

Exactly. Not to mention that he used the taxpayer-funded postal service to shuttle his wealth around and hide it from the government.


I just want to correct this statement, as many people have it wrong. The USPS doesn't recieve ANY money from the federal government (even though it's still a federal department). All wages and costs the USPS incurs are paid for by the selling of services to consumers (stamps, priority/express mail fees, delivery/signature confirmation, etc).

I just want to correct this statement, as many people have it wrong. The USPS doesn't recieve ANY money from the federal government (even though it's still a federal department). All wages and costs the USPS incurs are paid for by the selling of services to consumers (stamps, priority/express mail fees, delivery/signature confirmation, etc).

Which they could no doubt continue to do by selling their assets and running the same modest business for centuries to come. BIg woop.

Oh, and another thing. If he's participated in a domestic economy where the other "market forces" are paying taxes but he (his wife, whatever) are not, he has taken a government subsidy.

Damn, he's not even an independent nation. He's a colony. And a rebellious colony at that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244759,00.html

Do you think he is in the right or the wrong? Why?

Render unto the government what is the government's.

In other words, he should pay the damn taxes already. Unless he has advanced formophobia.

How so? The laws and punishments for tax evasion are clear and in writing and have been in existence in some form since the inception of the country. Its called the US legal code and the government is bound by law to follow it.



Been tried, its called a Socialist commune and except for rare small scale exceptions it has been near universally regarded as a failed system of government.

Never been tested outside of a capitalist paradigm.

In any case, does legislative power accord law logic?

Render unto the government what is the government's.



Why? Axiomatic to that is the suggestion that he owes the government, or that he is reliant upon government, neither of which, I suggest, would be the case.

Whatta selfish bastard - pay up or be sent down.

Never been tested outside of a capitalist paradigm.

In any case, does legislative power accord law logic?

I have a BA in Political Science and am still having trouble understanding what you just said. Could you rephrase please?

I have a BA in Political Science and am still having trouble understanding what you just said. Could you rephrase please?

Why does something's being legislation render it logical?

Never been tested outside of a capitalist paradigm.

In any case, does legislative power accord law logic?

There's no such thing as "outside a capitalist paradigm" when "capitalist" is expanded to mean "competative."

Why does something's being legislation render it logical?

One would assume the legislation had a logical basis for its creation but beyond that im not sure where you are leading with that point. You dont settle case law by logic, you settle it by precident and the rules of law we all agreed to, government and generel populace alike, and we are obligated to follow these agreements by remaining in the territory that the US claims for its own. You dont agree with the rules you are of course freely allowed to campaign to change those rules thru the legislative process or barring that go somewhere outside of that territory to where there are no governments that have claimed rights to that land and you can follow your own rules. Good luck with that.

There's no such thing as "outside a capitalist paradigm" when "capitalist" is expanded to mean "competative."

I agree. However, given that "competative" isn't actually a word, we may be entering somewhat murky waters here....

One would assume the legislation had a logical basis for its creation but beyond that im not sure where you are leading with that point. You dont settle case law by logic, you settle it by precident and the rules of law we all agreed to, government and generel populace alike, and we are obligated to follow these agreements by remaining in the territory that the US claims for its own. You dont agree with the rules you are of course freely allowed to campaign to change those rules thru the legislative process or barring that go somewhere outside of that territory to where there are no governments that have claimed rights to that land and you can follow your own rules. Good luck with that.

We may be approaching an impasse of sorts. Whereas you cravenly accept, and comply, with law in blind faith in those who are elected, others do not take as axiom the suitability of democratically elected leaders. Reading Aristotle may offer elucidation upon this point.

No, you're completely wrong.

Competative is indeed a word, it is just spelled "competitive."

How about we stop playing " little johnny caught a typo" and start being honest in our replies, Okie dokie?

Sorry. Unfortunately, the grammar Nazi in me needs an outlet at times...;)

I agree. However, given that "competitive" isn't actually a word, we may be entering somewhat murky waters here....

No, you're completely wrong.

Competative is indeed a word, it is just spelled "competitive."

How about we stop pwaying "wittle johnny caught a typo," Okie dokie?

We may be approaching an impasse of sorts. Whereas you cravenly accept, and comply, with law in blind faith in those who are elected, others do not take as axiom the suitability of democratically elected leaders. Reading Aristotle may offer elucidation upon this point.

Your wrong. We left England due to the unsuitability of Royalty to our tastes. We are hardly a breed to roll over and comply.

The American people dont cravenly accept and comply in blind faith anything. That notion is simply absurd. In the US there are absolutly people who change where they live based on State laws and not agreeing with the politics of a politician. They move to escape taxation, lower drinking age laws,to or away from states with legal prostitution or Gay marriage or restrictive abortion laws, if your Mormon you may move to Utah and the list goes on and on and on. They State shop to be in a place that agrees with thier principals. The beauty of the system that it allows this huge variety while still having the remarkable ability to function as a whole unit.

But once they get there people still want to be treated fairly and justly. So we elect people to insure this and make laws that equally applly to all to the best of the systems ability. I firmly believe that democracy sucks and it still beats the hell out of all the other alternatives.


And since i explained to you i had a BA in Political Science wouldnt it strike you as a bit odd if i hadnt read Aristotle? In other news The blessed Chris asks the Pope if hes ever read the bible.

Your wrong. We left England due to the unsuitability of Royalty to our tastes. We are hardly a breed to roll over and comply.

The American people dont cravenly accept and comply in blind faith anything. That notion is simply absurd. In the US there are absolutly people who change where they live based on State laws and not agreeing with the politics of a politician. They move to escape taxation, lower drinking age laws,to or away from states with legal prostitution or Gay marriage or restrictive abortion laws, if your Mormon you may move to Utah and the list goes on and on and on. They State shop to be in a place that agrees with thier principals. The beauty of the system that it allows this huge variety while still having the remarkable ability to function as a whole unit.

But once they get there people still want to be treated fairly and justly. So we elect people to insure this and make laws that equally applly to all to the best of the systems ability. I firmly believe that democracy sucks and it still beats the hell out of all the other alternatives.


And since i explained to you i had a BA in Political Science wouldnt it strike you as a bit odd if i hadnt read Aristotle? In other news The blessed Chris asks the Pope if hes ever read the bible.


A fine institution that graduates PS BAs who don't know "your" from "you're."

I suppose it is political science after all though. :rolleyes:

A fine institution that graduates PS BAs who don't know "your" from "you're."

I suppose it is political science after all though. :rolleyes:

*cough*troll*cough*

*cough*troll*cough*

Q: How many PS majors does it take to change a light bulb?

A: PS majors can't change shit.

:D

Before I begin responding, I should like to point out that I am merely speculating about the nature of anarchist society. No-one really knows what an anarchist society would look like, simply because the very point of an anarchist society is that it would be based on free and spontaneous relationships between individuals: these relationships should not be forced to fit within a theoretical mould suggested by an intellectual still living within a capitalist State.

Being a realist, I can tell you that's not going to happen without some form of government. Society tends towards order and rule. Thereby, society tends towards government.

Societies do tend towards order but do they need states to bring about that order? Not necessarily. As Pierre-Joseph Proudhon famously said, "Anarchy is Order". It is entirely possible to have an ordered society without the presence of a coercive State.

Besides, no major project would ever work without some higher form of organization only found in large corporations or governments.

Could a small commune or a council not provide that level of organisation? Anarchists are generally not against government, so long as everyone is given the opportunity to agree to that government, so long as the individual has the free choice to cease being governed at any point and so long as that government is robbed of any coercive powers (i.e. police, army, legislation, judiciary). In other words, truly direct democracy where the individual is sovereign and the 'government' is just there to organise rather than dominate.

Not all individuals would. You'd still have people who wouldn't pay a cent. And still use the stuff. And then the idea would spread. Then nobody would pay for these amenities but still demand them. People are inherently selfish.

Firstly, in the anarchist society, there would be no concept of paying for something. You keep the fruits of your labour or (if you do not require the fruits of your labour) you can withdraw the equivalent from the communal surplus. If you want a road, you go to your local commune and see how many other people in the locality want a road. People will want a road for transporting goods and themselves. You would then build said road. As you relied on communal support to build the road, the road would be communal 'property' and thus open to all the members of the commune who wish to use it. The selfish motive of desiring the road for yourself is fulfilled but at the same time the communal desire for a road is also fulfilled.

Unfortunately for you, the government is the only one that can usually enforce a fair level of takings for these amenities.

As mentioned, there does not need to be a State for there to be order. People do not need to be forced to do anything: they are perfectly capable of co-operating.

Setting up this system of government essentially regresses society back to hunter gatherer days. Do you REALLY want to go back to third world villages with dirt roads and no interstate highways for food and product transportation?

The anarchist experiments of the 20th Century (primarily the Makhnovists in the Ukraine and the Spanish anarchists in Catalyuna) have proved that people are perfectly capable of running large areas of lands with complex cities without the coercive hand of the State interfering. Civilisation did not immediately collapse in these areas nor would it have done, had outside forces allowed the experiment to continue. We certainly would not regress: we wouldn't lose all of our technology and our learning just because the State is gone. The only difference would be is that the technology would be in the hands of everybody, not just the property of the select few to be used when they deem fit.

Without government who builds the Hoover dam or decides that its even a priority? You think "private" companies would do this? Who gets to decide who wins the contracts to do the work? Who decides how much it should cost and how long it should take?

If the members of a commune decide that a dam is needed, then they will build a dam. Specialists can always be obtained from other communes. If an individual decides that (s)he does not want a damn, then that individual is perfectly free to refuse to take part in the labour required to build one and occupy themselves with something else. Once a voluntary workforce has been assembled, it will be able to organise itself efficiently and construct the dam within the parameters it sets for itself.

If only 85% of the people agree to pay for a project that is critical to the health of the community but you need the investment of the entire community to make something work then what do you do?

Note the example above explaining the process of road building in the state-less society. It would operate in the same way: people would decide to together that they need a hospital and then they would set about building one. They do not require the State to tell them that they need a hospital and they do not require the State to tell them how to build a hospital: all individuals are capable of recognising these things themselves without being kicked into doing them by the self-serving elite known as the State.

Tyranny of the minority?

An accurate description of the State as it currently is.

The government makes these decisions because as a collective most people are unsuited to make such choices.

Bull. People are perfectly capable of seeing the need for a hospital, a road, a dam, a factory, a school or a farm: they do not need to be told by anyone. If there are larger issues at stake that require specialist knowledge, then the commune may invite a specialist to give them some advice on the matter.

In essence the government is an amalgamation of what the people as a majority agree to do and it is the instrument in which it can most efficiently carry out those desires.

Modern government is not an amalgamation of what the majority agree to do because most modern governments never ask the people to agree to anything. If you live in a dictatorship, you don't get to vote on which master you have and you have to do as that master says. If you live in one of the Western 'democracies', you get a choice of master every so often and after that you still have to do as that master says. If you refuse to do as you are told, you are made into a criminal and are deprived of your liberty.

And being an "anarcho-invididualist" sounds like you gave the word hippie a buff and polish.

Anarcho-individualism is much older than the hippie movement and it is much more philosophically mature than the hippie movement. Ever read Max Stirner or Benjamin Tucker? Try them, you might learn that you do not need the State to wipe your arse for you. I do not necessarily agree with all the tenets of the hippie movement but the Counter Left culture of the 1960s had ideas that were pretty close to mark.

Before I begin responding, I should like to point out that I am merely speculating about the nature of anarchist society. No-one really knows what an anarchist society would look like, simply because the very point of an anarchist society is that it would be based on free and spontaneous relationships between individuals: these relationships should not be forced to fit within a theoretical mould suggested by an intellectual still living within a capitalist State.

I see, so what we have is this wonderful society that is so effective that it has been unable to exist or flourish ever and in fact we cant even imagine what it would look like according to you? You have me sold.




As mentioned, there does not need to be a State for there to be order. People do not need to be forced to do anything: they are perfectly capable of co-operating.

I think i see the problem here. I suspect you are young and have had little experience working with large groups of people. You seem to have some naieve notion that if someone says lets build a bridge, that everyone will agree by magic on the reason need and cost. 20 people in a room cant agree on the color of shit let alone the complexities of financing a large and complex public project. Out of those 20 people 14 will decide a bridge is needed, 3 will be terminally undecided, 1 will stop talking to the others who dont agree with him and go sulk ion the corner, 8 will insist on using thier design, 7 people will come up with the "best" way to finace it and one guy will insist that all the money for the project be invested in lottery tickets so they can build 2 bridges instead. Without an informed authority to "decide" what path to ultimatly take that form of government by hippie is set to fail almost by design. Its simply the way human nature is.



If the members of a commune decide that a dam is needed, then they will build a dam. Specialists can always be obtained from other communes. If an individual decides that (s)he does not want a damn, then that individual is perfectly free to refuse to take part in the labour required to build one and occupy themselves with something else. Once a voluntary workforce has been assembled, it will be able to organise itself efficiently and construct the dam within the parameters it sets for itself.

Lol, yea right...see my last paragraph.



Note the example above explaining the process of road building in the state-less society. It would operate in the same way: people would decide to together that they need a hospital and then they would set about building one. They do not require the State to tell them that they need a hospital and they do not require the State to tell them how to build a hospital: all individuals are capable of recognising these things themselves without being kicked into doing them by the self-serving elite known as the State.

Same



Bull. People are perfectly capable of seeing the need for a hospital, a road, a dam, a factory, a school or a farm: they do not need to be told by anyone. If there are larger issues at stake that require specialist knowledge, then the commune may invite a specialist to give them some advice on the matter.

And same again.



Modern government is not an amalgamation of what the majority agree to do because most modern governments never ask the people to agree to anything. If you live in a dictatorship, you don't get to vote on which master you have and you have to do as that master says. If you live in one of the Western 'democracies', you get a choice of master every so often and after that you still have to do as that master says. If you refuse to do as you are told, you are made into a criminal and are deprived of your liberty.

This is also completly wrong. We dont vote for masters, we live in a representative democracy. Im sure someone who knows big words like capatilist paragim doesnt need that notion explained to him. We also not only have the power to change leaders we also have the power to lobby for changes in laws we dont like. Look at the sucesses groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a million other examples have changed laws thru grassroots legislative movements that our "masters" are required to follow regardless if they like it or not. Im pretty sure you dont need to have the concept of prisions explained to you. The mandate to permit prisions comes from the people not the government. When a person votes for someone who runs on a platform of "tough on crime" this is how this desire is manifested. The government is simply the agent of societys desires.

I see, so what we have is this wonderful society that is so effective that it has been unable to exist or flourish ever and in fact we cant even imagine what it would look like according to you? You have me sold.

You can imagine all you want: just don't ask that your abstract ruminations be enforced on the new society that is created after the downfall of the State. Oh and elements of the anarchist society have in fact existed before: take the direct democracy in the ancient Greek cities for example. While the democracy in those cities was limited and discriminatory, it did prove that it is perfectly possible to run a face-to-face participatory democracy.

I think i see the problem here. I suspect you are young and have had little experience working with large groups of people.You seem to have some naieve notion that if someone says lets build a bridge, that everyone will agree by magic on the reason need and cost. 20 people in a room cant agree on the color of shit let alone the complexities of financing a large and complex public project. Out of those 20 people 14 will decide a bridge is needed, 3 will be terminally undecided, 1 will stop talking to the others who dont agree with him and go sulk ion the corner, 8 will insist on using thier design, 7 people will come up with the "best" way to finace it and one guy will insist that all the money for the project be invested in lottery tickets so they can build 2 bridges instead. Without an informed authority to "decide" what path to ultimatly take that form of government by hippie is set to fail almost by design. Its simply the way human nature is.

Ah, you conveniently dodged the historical examples I provided. Let us take the Spanish anarchists in Catalyuna. At the time, Catalyuna was the most industrialised region of Spain and Barcelona (its capital) was one of Spain's largest and most complex cities. The people of the city proved very capable at running the city and the industry without a coercive State: most visitors to the region were amazed at just how well things were run.

Want another example? Take the early trade union movements. Large groups of (fairly uneducated) workers spontaneously developing participatory organisations which they then used to gain concessions from their exploiters.

Or, on a more modern and local level, take a Neighbourhood Watch. People collectively decide that they want an increased level of security on their street. Do they go running to the State to organise them? No, they form their own group which they run and organise themselves. These groups can prove extremely effective in preventing and reporting crime.

Of course, none of the above are examples of a pure anarchist society.But they do amply demonstrate that people do not need the state in order to co-operate and organise.

quote]This is also completly wrong. We dont vote for masters, we live in a representative democracy.[/quote]

Really? What if I voted for the other guy? Where am I represented? If a Member of Parliament wins the constituency by one vote, where are all the people who voted against him represented?

We also not only have the power to change leaders we also have the power to lobby for changes in laws we dont like. Look at the sucesses groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a million other examples have changed laws thru grassroots legislative movements that our "masters" are required to follow regardless if they like it or not.

Required? Why are politicians required to obey grass roots movements? Elected representatives are required to do nothing: they only respond to grass root movements when they choose to, on a whim. They are not actually responsible to the people until the next election: then that person might be voted out and replaced by another who again is not responsible to his constituents until the next election.

Im pretty sure you dont need to have the concept of prisions explained to you.

Quite. Prisons are where the State shoves those who have disobeyed the subjective code of morality known as the law.

The mandate to permit prisions comes from the people not the government. When a person votes for someone who runs on a platform of "tough on crime" this is how this desire is manifested. The government is simply the agent of societys desires.

But once the individual is elected, he is not under any requirements to do anything in regards to his promise. He can ignore the people once his election has passed because he is no longer reliant on them for the maintenance of his power. Any projects he then initiates are not on the behalf of the people but on his own personal whim.

The government should simply be the agent of society's desires. But the modern State is not. The modern State is an entity itself which exploits the people without their consent. It acts for its own interests, in order to preserve its own power. The State is only interested in the accumulation of power.

Societies do tend towards order but do they need states to bring about that order? Not necessarily. As Pierre-Joseph Proudhon famously said, "Anarchy is Order". It is entirely possible to have an ordered society without the presence of a coercive State.

An ordered society is one that has an overarching leadership branch. Even the smallest town has a governor somewhere along with the usual administrative branches like law enforcement, postal services, etc, etc. And in said societies, misfits must comply or be punished. An ordered society without some form of coercion is impossible.


Could a small commune or a council not provide that level of organisation?


Nope. No small commune could certainly put together something on the level of a proper intercity highway, much less Hoover Dam. Many small communes maybe, but they'd have to have a centralized control. Heard the term "too many cooks spoil the broth"? It applies to organization too. You can only have one head.


Anarchists are generally not against government, so long as everyone is given the opportunity to agree to that government, so long as the individual has the free choice to cease being governed at any point and so long as that government is robbed of any coercive powers (i.e. police, army, legislation, judiciary). In other words, truly direct democracy where the individual is sovereign and the 'government' is just there to organise rather than dominate.


In short, turn the government into an advisory board.

Not going to work. People would set up their own laws and enforce them by might of arms. Eventually, they'd morph into the new government once the biggest gang of thugs wiped out the rest.

Case in point, Afghanistan. The government is a toothless puppet. Warlords make the law in their holdings.

Everything is pretty shit.

That's what anarchy is. Most utopian espousing anarchists fail to account for the human capacity for aggression and the desire to control.


Firstly, in the anarchist society, there would be no concept of paying for something. You keep the fruits of your labour or (if you do not require the fruits of your labour) you can withdraw the equivalent from the communal surplus. If you want a road, you go to your local commune and see how many other people in the locality want a road. People will want a road for transporting goods and themselves. You would then build said road. As you relied on communal support to build the road, the road would be communal 'property' and thus open to all the members of the commune who wish to use it. The selfish motive of desiring the road for yourself is fulfilled but at the same time the communal desire for a road is also fulfilled.

And those who never paid a cent laugh as they go on this road for free. That's where communal societies fail. Once you get a free rider, it won't be long before others become free riders.

The highest level of true communal structures have been things like the kibbutz and other small scale groupings incapable of affecting any real change on their environment. Anything bigger, and it falls apart.


As mentioned, there does not need to be a State for there to be order. People do not need to be forced to do anything: they are perfectly capable of co-operating.

Until someone realizes they can get something for nothing or a fraction of what it's worth. Or until someone feels like he wants to be the big boss.

Or until your neighbor who has more guns feels like taking away your stuff.

Most people are sheep, but it's the wolves and shepherds who end up with the bigger slice of the pie at the sheep's expense. Always has been, always will be.