This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Italy And The Great Tax Revolt

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by James Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

Italy And The Great Tax Revolt

Taxation is theft.

There is no denying this.  If I and a few brutes appeared at the door of an unsuspecting individual and demanded monetary compensation less we drag him off to jail, this would be a clear cut case of robbery.  It is a common tactic used by mobs or street gangs to offer protection with the barrel of a gun.  The only difference between shakedowns by private thugs and those employed by the state is the badge.  The badge legalizes extortion and imprisonment.

With that being said, it has been three years since the financial crisis and governments around the world are still reeling in the lesser Depression.  Tax collections are down while public expenditures have skyrocketed in a vain effort to stabilize the economy.  Much of this mass orgy in spending has been financed by central banks printing money and the suppression of interest rates down to artificially low levels.  This is the Keynesian remedy to recession.  Spend what you don’t have via the printing press.  Have central bankers create paradise on Earth through counterfeiting.

So far it hasn’t worked.

Like the Great Depression before, regime uncertainty and an emphasis on consumption over private investment have prevented a sustainable recovery from taking hold.  Public debts continue their upward trend with no conceivable end in sight.  The bond vigilantes have started their attack on the Eurozone; namely Greece, Portugal, Italy, and Spain.  Greece is all but finished as even the most dimwitted of commentators is conceding than an exit from the euro is likely.  Meanwhile in Italy, the lack of tax collection has forced the hand of Prime Minister Mario Monti to crack down on tax evasion.  This hasn’t gone over well with the Italian public.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Equitalia, the state tax-collection agency, has been targeted in a wave of attacks as Italians chafe under stepped-up efforts to recover an estimated 120 billion euros ($153 billion) in lost revenue from evasion. On May 12, a Molotov cocktail exploded outside Equitalia’s Livorno office, one day after a parcel bomb was delivered to the Rome headquarters, site of a December explosion that tore off part of the general manager’s hand.

“I have never seen such a tense atmosphere” said Ballico, who has been employed by Equitalia since 1998 and is now on temporary leave to work for the UGL labor union. “They call us loan sharks, bloodsuckers; my colleagues have to deal with anxiety and stomach aches every day and they are scared.”

News to Ms. Ballico: you and your coworkers are “bloodsuckers.”  Your profession is based on pure violence and robbing your countrymen.  Why should they not identify you for what you truly are?

The reactionary attacks are the result of the austerity measures being imposed in Italy and other highly indebted countries of the Eurozone periphery.  These measures are often described as savage cuts in spending when in actuality the public is being squeezed more to fund the government’s operations.  The political class remains unwilling to significantly scale back its operation and profligacy.  The money was supposed to be cheap.  The good times were never supposed to end.

And now the slaves are revolting.

Earlier this month, a 54-year-old small businessman facing financial difficulties and tax debts of around 2,400 euros, took 15 hostages at an Equitalia office near Bergamo for several hours before surrendering to police.

When the chains of oppression are being tightened, some react in not-so-kind manners.

And yet this is the trend happening all around the world.  In light of Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renouncing his U.S. citizenship to live in Singapore and avoid filling the coffers of the IRS from the billions he stands to gain on the popular website’s initial public offering, New York Senator Chuck Schumer and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey have introduced legislation to mandate a 30% capital gains tax on those who follow in Saverin’s footsteps.  In France, many entrepreneurs are gearing up to leave as newly-elected President Francois Hollande has promised to raise the highest marginal tax rate to 75%.  Greece is being pressured to clamp down on tax evasion.  The same goes with Spain.  Even Swiss banks are being targeted by the U.S. Department of Justice for acting as tax safe havens.

Politicians and their bureaucratic foils think only in the short term.  They see less tax money flowing into their hands and instantly attempt to confiscate more.  This reaction is an inner glimpse into their true motive of reestablishing supremacy.  Why people would be reluctant to hand over even more of the sweat of their brow is never a consideration.  In the politician’s mind, it is the populous that serves the state, not vice versa.  Centuries of compulsory democracy haven’t altered the relationship between the aristocracy and the serfs who plow the field.  Today, serfdom is disguised with the existence of the ballot box.

Like a drug addict, the state must be sustained by increasing amounts of revenue to satisfy its craving of paying off voters.  It must continually buy legitimacy to hold up the veil which masks its thieving tendencies.  As the tax fund dwindles, governments in the West are becoming desperate.  Like the producers in Ayn Rand’s uncannily predictive novel Atlas Shrugged, many of the more productive members of society have grown tired of being soaked to pay for political handouts and unending wars of aggression.  The resistance isn’t limited to the rich as the Chronicle article points out, “much of the anger directed at Equitalia is from people with more modest means.”

Italian Interior Ministry Anna Maria has declared that attacking tax collectors “is the equivalent of attacking the state.”  What she won’t admit is that the state carries out a perpetual war on those who it feeds off of to function.  In perhaps the greatest and most precise description of the state ever written, individual anarchist Lysander Spooner explains difference between a highway robber and a government tax collector:

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is nonetheless a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will, assuming to be your rightful “sovereign”; on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The only difference between a thief and the taxman is the thief recognizes his crime is wrong.  The taxman not only feels entitled to the labor of others but routinely pilfers under the pretenses of serving its victims.

Decades ago in the depths of the Great Depression, Western governments took advantage of the crisis and consolidated power and enlarged the scope of their authority.  Voters barely put up a fight.  They gave up personal and economic liberty for entitlement programs.  It seemed like the right choice at the time.

It was the great swindle orchestrated by a ruling class looking only to expand its control.

Now that the money for the savior state is running out, the choice is clearer than ever.  The leeches living off the state apparatus are prepared to do whatever is necessary to preserve their well being.  From political protest to tax evasion, trampling the citizenry into compliance is their goal.  It is ultimately up to the public at large to decide how much they are individually willing to take.

The small businessmen of Italy have made their choice and have said no to more of their income being squandered away on the perks of government employees.  Let’s us hope they won’t be the only ones.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 05/20/2012 - 16:39 | 2445699 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

The greatest truth is that taxation is not based in LAW but in TREATY.

That is the problem.

And treaties have been signed in perpetuity, to all heirs and whatever other inbreds...

this revolt will have to rewire first.

ori

/wisdom-for-warriors-5/

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 20:22 | 2446065 ajax
ajax's picture

 

Not a word about the latest UBS scandal? This time UBS Geneve, this time Portugal, this time 1 billion euros:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5is98CPNaDZS5PS1gKpUsL...

 

Akoya Asset Management

 

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 23:47 | 2446386 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'There is no denying this.  If I and a few brutes appeared at the door of an unsuspecting individual and demanded monetary compensation less we drag him off to jail, this would be a clear cut case of robbery.  It is a common tactic used by mobs or street gangs to offer protection with the barrel of a gun.  The only difference between shakedowns by private thugs and those employed by the state is the badge.  The badge legalizes extortion and imprisonment.' -

What a load of bollocks. This piece was written specifically for, and to pander ZH conspiracy theorists. Without taxes, how would we be defended? Without taxes, how would I be able to keep the fruits of my labour?

We pay taxes to the government so that they can protect us from foreign powers and provide a stable basis upon which we can trade, and enjoy the benefits of our industry. If you want to say that taxes are too high, and used for superfluous things that a government should not be involved in  then that's one thing, but this 'The only difference between shakedowns by private thugs and those employed by the state is the badge. ' is horseshit, all of it.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 23:58 | 2446418 floydian slip
floydian slip's picture

Defended from what?  CIA officers disguised as al queda?

lol

Bollocks?  Sounds like something an English welfare pig would say.  Thats why you want taxes so you can keep getting the dole eh?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:12 | 2446555 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

What makes you think I even live in England?

or is there something else you want to make up and then criticise?

Perhaps ou haven't worked out yet that those getting the dole don't pay taxes?

No, didn't think so...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 00:40 | 2446472 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Excise taxes are the only legitimate form of taxation in a free society, as they can be legally avoided by avoiding the taxed activity. Income taxes and property taxes are illegitimate in a free society because they usurp the individuals ownership of labor and property in favor of the state.

The USA functioned just fine until 1913 on excise taxes alone.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:15 | 2446557 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I can agree with that. People should be allowed to keep what they earn

But I would add that estates should be taxed on inheritance and sales taxes should be the norm.

When all's said and done, If I am to make money in a safe environment then there is a cost to maintain that. Most people are willing to pay taxes for that, but like me draw the line when government gives it away to those it has no right to..

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:09 | 2446783 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Please let us know where this "safe" environment is. Please describe how taxes are the best way to achieve one. This should be entertaining.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:26 | 2446810 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Please...

If you're expecting me to start with a 'first there was a man and then there was a woman' type discussion I've got news for you, some of us are a little more advanced than that.

Now, when you're ready to stop wasting everyone's time with stupidity...

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:36 | 2446844 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

What a wanker. No argument at all. 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:07 | 2446876 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

It's always difficult debating with a mental fucking spastic, but here goes. Do let me know where I go wrong.

Now if you could be good enough to explain how you can be writing on this website if we don't pay taxes. It will do at the end.

But just for clarity, and because I can see from your comments below that you haven't really grasped it, you can string these squiggly lines together into 'words' because someone educated you in a 'school'. Somebody worked in that school called a 'teacher'. He/she is the one that taught you to write, and possibly to read, but you wouldn't know it from the shit that you spout.

You write on these pages because Tyler says you can. He says you can because he has agreed to sell advertising to someone else. You with me so far? Cool. Someone else has AGREED TO PAY HIM MONEY IN WHAT'S CALLED A 'CONTRACT'. Let me know if I'm losing you here. If the advertiser doesn't pay, Tyler can take this guy to what's known as a 'court'. Courts are not private, voluntary or profit making institutions. They do not exist to make money, the are a net cost. They are there to decide on issues of law. In the court sits a 'judge', who thankfully isn't paid by either party because it wouldn't be fair would it?

So we pay for judges and courts through 'taxation', which is where everyone pays so that the judge can be impartial. Now the judge will look at the 'contract' and decide whether the advertiser has to pay or not, so that Tyler can feed his family. If the Judge says he must, then that's the way it is, and anyone like you who thinks he can do something else discovers that he is not alone and is subject to the rules applicable in a safe environment where people who write are educated and one assumes that when they turn up at work to debate the issue, are healthy.

Now, when the advertiser refuses to pay the judge will appoint a 'bailiff' to collect the debt and enforce the decision of the court; i.e. pay Tyler his fee. You might not like this bit but no one really gives a fuck. If you shoot the Bailiff or otherwise refuse to pay because you think you are 'sovereign' and above the State ie a wanker, then the Bailiff will call the cops. Those cops are full time dudes and are required to carry out the instructions of the judge. Shoot the cop and they will send in a soldier, and they've got bigger guns because when all's said and done, you can't have silly little tossers like you running around thinking that everyone has to pay what they owe to you, buy you only have to pay what you think is rightful and just, can you. This is what's called a society, it has rules, the same ones that allow you to spout your shit on these pages.

There, did I nail it?

Now we make these rules so that we can all earn money, and live of the benefits of our labours because it simply isn't right that anyone else should be able to walk in and simply take our stuff. That's why we pay for soldiers and policemen and the entire apparatus that will enforce the decisions of the judges. I do hope I'm not pissing you off too much here because I know you think you can do it all lot better yourself 'voluntarily' but that's horsehit isn't it, and we all know it? Now if someone were to invade us and try to change our rules, we might be a little pissed off, so we pay lots of soldiers just in case in the vain hope that our neighbours will leave us in peace to make our money and otherwise bitch about the high cost of being able to say what you say.

But that's just tough. So pay your fucking taxes tosser, and stop fucking whining about it.

Now, over to you to explain why we don't need any of this... should be interesting, though I doubt it.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:31 | 2447447 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Well, about this arguement you say you have....

guess it was just horseshit, eh?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:46 | 2447503 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Contracts are not the provenance of government. They are a common device used since the Sumerians to conclude trade. They were even used in mining towns and on wagon trains (without any government whatsoever). Why you would think Tyler would need a government to conclude a contract is beyond me.

Further, enforcement of said contracts can be done before any agreed upon panel of arbitrators, which would be part of the contract. With me so far?

These arbitrators would work for the parties and therefore would judge their claims fairly or never be hired again. However, in a State system, the courts and judges exist at the convenience of the State and consequently rule accordingly- regardless of the law. Please see Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson or Native American Treaties, etc.

Further, private insurance can protect you from losses. 

Society does have rules, but you have failed to make the case that a government is necessary to have society, otherwise all those Pastoral societies of the past and present wouldn't exist. 

So, fat prat, when you come up with an intelligent argument- let me know.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:12 | 2447553 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

So who the fuck is going to enforce it dick head?

Stop pussying around and answer the fucking question. You don't pay, the penalty gets worse until you either do or you die. That's why we have police and that's why we have soldiers and that's why you pay taxes. That's why you NEED enforcement.

You really are a cocksucking whimp.

'Further, enforcement of said contracts can be done before any agreed upon panel of arbitrators, which would be part of the contract.' what a load of fucking offal. Do you really believe this shit? Who is going to enforce this 'arbitration', 'the school nurse'?

'These arbitrators would work for the parties and therefore would judge their claims fairly or never be hired again.' -What a load of lame arse spew. Is that the best you can do? I want paying for my goods and services, not this 'never be hired again' fucking bullshit. Do you think I can afford to supply a gate, car or anything else to every single person in this country on that basis that if they don't pay me they'll 'never be hired again'? You pay taxes so that you can maintain the environment in which you can enjoy the fruits of your labour, not hand it over to everyone and anyone for free on the basis that you might never do business with them again. Tosser.

 'Further, private insurance can protect you from losses.' - It would be funny if it weren't so sad. You naive tosser. Do us all a favour and shut the fuck up until you have given this more than a mere modicum of thought, or perhaps you do really have all the intellectual capacity of a fucking five year old.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 13:07 | 2448048 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

My isn 't somebody angry. Do you really think that improves your argument?

The market enforces it. Why would anyone make a contract with someone that doesn't abide by them? Sorry, i thought you could figure this out. 

Contracts have functioned for millenium without a government to "enforce" it. Why do people follow social rules? Because people realize it is easier to get along or move along.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 21:04 | 2449329 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

What an outright tosser. You are either incredibly naive or utterly fucking stupid. You cannot possibly be running your own business. How do you know if someone isn't going to pay you until you have supplied them with goods?

'Contracts have functioned for millenium without a government to "enforce" it' You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 01:57 | 2446547 The Navigator
The Navigator's picture

What an oxyMORON - "without taxes, how would I be able to keep the fruits of my labor?"

You should sue your parents for dropping you on your head and causing your brain damage.

Are you also going to rely on the gov't for your retirement 'a la' social security?

The only thing gov't does well is package bull shit; and apparently there's still no shortage of suckers buying it by the truckload.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:11 | 2446559 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Bullshit. Do you live in a country that's ever been invaded?

or do you live in the US, which was invaded. Go ask the indians, who had no standing armies (in part because they paid no taxes) how that one worked out.

And as for 'keeping the fruits of my labour", how long do you think my house will remain pretty when someone else starts firing shells at it?

or perhaps you think the infrastructure that enables you to even claim title to assets and to keep what you earn was free? Please...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:38 | 2446578 Axenolith
Axenolith's picture

Native Americans were probably in the top 5% of tactical warriors on the planet.  Every tribe that fought could field a decent force on short notice, and coalitions fielded significant forces.  They didn't lose because of lack of taxes, they lost because the got reduced by about 80% by foreign microbes and they had not concept of strategic warfare.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:48 | 2446582 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

They had 'no concept of strategic warfare' because they didn't engage it it. Other than regional wars between nations which were as you say, spurious made by armies fielded at short notice they had no concept, and no defence from foreign armies that did.

Whilst I understand what you say, the Indians lost because they were out-gunned, out-planned and out-fought.

That's what happens when predominantly peaceful people come up against well trained armies. If you don't have one you're dead. And since they require wages and food whilst on service they aren't free, and can't be provided at short notice either. They have to be paid for, which means taxes. That's the cost of being able to lay claim to your assets. Someone has to enforce that claim.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:14 | 2446797 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You really have no understanding of native americans. You might want to read up on the war of 1812. American soldiers were terrified of Indians. Consequently, they were slaughtered on a regular basis. 

Cultural beliefs regarding land, a belief in contracts and foreign diseases beat the indians.

As for well trained armies, the Brits are still miffed by being beaten by amateurs in the revolutionary war. 

Read a history book.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:19 | 2446806 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Oh right, so the Indians won...

Do me a favour.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:02 | 2446875 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Last time I checked, the Indians exist on their own lands, collect royalty payments, have their own laws and are making a great living fleecing people in gambling casinos. They have more freedom than the average American. Funny how things work out.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:12 | 2446884 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

and if that's the quality of your due dilligence, no fucking wonder you spout this shit...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:49 | 2447512 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

No facts, no citations, no argument. Nice M.O.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:30 | 2447673 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

and there is some in yours?

that's a lame excuse for a retort, and you know it...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:50 | 2446583 nicxios
nicxios's picture

So the lesson here for invaded countries is to tax more and more until they're properly able to fend off invaders...

You'd make a good politician.

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 03:15 | 2446599 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

History dictates that countries that maintain an inadequate defence don't remain 'uninvaded' for long.

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Politics is the process of undermining that defence in order to provide funding for welfare...

I'm not aware that that has ever ended well...

in which case I am no longer able to enjoy the fruits of my labour. Like I said, most people don't object to the concept of taxation, just the way in which it is squandered by govt...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:18 | 2446805 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Most nations on Earth are never invaded, regardless of the size of their armies. In fact, the number of nations continues to rise because of revolution- revolutions against taxation systems and brutal political rule. One of the reasons America and NATO are having to run back with their tails between their legs in Afganistan. 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:19 | 2446809 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Most nations on Earth are never invaded, -

Bullshit. Nuff said.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:39 | 2446849 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Please back up your claim. In the last hundred years, only a handful of nations have been invaded. That is not most. 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:17 | 2446895 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

In the last 100 years now is it? My that's a bit restrictive.

Let's just nail it to two world wars eh, in which condsiderably more than a few countries were invaded. And we won't go into the crusades or Romans or anybody else. Not now you've just changed the rules eh?

Wouldn't want to go changing the rules half way through a debate. Just a good job we don't have armed forces paid for by taxes in your silly little world to stop you.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:54 | 2447521 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

There are between 190 and two hundred countries in the world. Most would constitute a minimum of 86. Please present a list for the last hundred years. Good luck.

Going beyond four generations is worthless.

Of course, it is the countries with the largest governments that have created the few wars and invasions we have had.

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:19 | 2447644 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Fuck off. 'There are between 190 and two hundred countries in the world.' so you don't even know that eh, change every few days do they?

Frankly I've got better things to do...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 13:11 | 2448059 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm

As a matter of fact, the number changes all the time. You might use some time learning...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 20:52 | 2449351 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Yes I know we've just developed another three since lunch time. Please...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:15 | 2446562 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

What a load of bollocks. This piece was written specifically for, and to pander ZH conspiracy theorists. Without taxes, how would we be defended? Without taxes, how would I be able to keep the fruits of my labour.

_________________________________________________

For a larger audience. Post theft way of thinking.

What can not be denied is that US citizens deny their own history.

It goes far beyond defense. It goes to offense.

US citizens denied the whole nineteenth century when they praised themselves for having a State, enabling them to crush stateless societies.

Because as a matter of fact, and unfortunately for US citizens, history brought them to face stateless societies. And their behaviour told a ton.

Post theft pattern of thinking. US citizens have robbed the majority of things and they want now to ban the main apparatus they used to achieve that: the state.

Simple as that. They cant rob any longer because they have robbed so much successful they own most of things. And now, they are the ones to be robbed from.

The best thing about Austrians, Randians and the rest is the level of submission they require from their readership. US citizenism is about submission, coercion. Not about freedom. And the Austrians, the Randians are fair specimens of US citizens.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:21 | 2446567 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I have not the first clue what this means...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:40 | 2446644 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1  Me either.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:32 | 2446574 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous said:

just more Chinese citizenism propaganda

The guy that fills in for you on the weekends didn't show up for work this weekend.

He kind of screwed up a week ago, you know, making posts that didn't even mention US citizenism. He must be one of the new hires at the PRC Ministry of Truth. I told him that he really needs to stay in character and that he should just follow the official templates until he gets the hang of it.

Hopefully he's just getting some additional training. I would hope that even under Chinese citizenism, a new guy wouldn't be eliminated for just one mistake.

Just trying to help.

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:46 | 2446650 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

At least the American Government don't charge you for the bullet they use to execute you.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 02:33 | 2446576 Axenolith
Axenolith's picture

The article is about income taxes, the government has ALWAYS been able to provide for defense off excise and tariffs.  "Without taxes how would you be able to keep the fruits of your labor"?  Are you fookin' serious?  There are, in our world, manufacturers of devices knows as "Weapons".  Weapons even allow noodle armed pussies to keep the fruits of their labor...

Get a life. 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 03:22 | 2446601 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

are these 'weapons' to which you refer free?

or are you advocating that we all go fight with noodles?

You might want to go give this some thought...

But do please tell me which part of this statement refers to income taxes 'The only difference between a thief and the taxman is the thief recognizes his crime is wrong.  The taxman not only feels entitled to the labor of others but routinely pilfers under the pretenses of serving its victims.' because there doesn't seem to be too much differentiation here to me. In fact there doesn't appear to be any.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:40 | 2446645 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

You need defense against who, what ? The Germans ? Hell, no need to pay taxes as they can get in Paris in 3 months as soon as they wish to do. So, by your standard, France should be tax free.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:51 | 2446659 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

France was defeated because it had an inadequate defence. Not sure how your logic functions here.

My logic says they didn't spend enough...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:55 | 2446663 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

We didn't spend enough in WWI, in WWII, in Algeria, in Dien Bien Phu, and etc... When did we spend enough money, with Napoleon, the guy who butchered, raped and burned half of the european countries ? Cool, bro, I want to pay for this. Sure, it is required to survive.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:02 | 2446670 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

You don't need to pay enough to go marauding, just to defend yourself from marauders.

The English spent enough, and along with their Austrian friends they kicked Napoleans arse.

But then that's the point isn't it? You aren't going to pay for those kinds of armies with excise taxes and local militia. It needs professionals, and lots of them, which costs. The fact is that you have to spend what it costs, no matter what it costs, and the only alternative is to either run away or die.

That's a tough choice we in the West haven't faced in many years, not since Coronation Street and American Idol, you know, those things that give you that stable, warm, cozy, glowing feeling that war and defence don't matter.

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:31 | 2446676 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

Nope, we have lost countless wars and are still alive.

Take the best marauder of our times, the US empire, do you think I need to buy hacking device to destroy their drones ? Nope, they are committing suicide, because, hey, no matter the costs.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:40 | 2446687 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

We?

The only reason you can afford to sit by and wait for them to 'commit suicide' is because these weapons aren't pointing at you.

I'm sure that the Syrians and the Iranians don't share your sentiments...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:50 | 2446694 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

Patience is mother of victory.

How paying taxes helped the japanese american or the german jews to protect their lives and property in the 40's ? It didn't.

Worst, they pay to get fucked. As a computer virus, the government use the processor against itself.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:58 | 2446702 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Riiiight, now where did this argument come from?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:02 | 2446707 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

First hand witnesses who passed the data to second hand, and etc, until me. And I keep propagating. How well did the japanse american taxpayers felt about their government provided protection when they really needed it ? I'm sure they had loved.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:09 | 2446711 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'until me. And I keep propagating.'

OK, so all discussions come back to this for you do they?

Ok, wrong chat, but thanks for playing...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:11 | 2446713 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

Nope, most of the times discussions come back to what we are going to do for holydays, I don't see your point, you're welcome.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:16 | 2446719 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

My point is that the discussion has now become so far removed from the original subject that the discussion is now over.

You have a good day now...

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:21 | 2446720 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

The discussion is over when I pointed out what governments do to their protected innocent taxpayers when the official thugs need their ressources.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:03 | 2446708 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

First hand witnesses who passed the data to second hand, and etc, until me. And I keep propagating. How well did the japanse american taxpayers felt about their government provided protection when they really needed it ? I'm sure they had loved.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:24 | 2446818 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

They obviously didn't spend enough in America or India or even Basra. Perhaps they should up the ante and try to get HK back? Oh wait, Britain is broke. 

If you just want to argue, get a mirror.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:28 | 2446830 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

and your point being?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 13:48 | 2448186 EuroSovietSerf
EuroSovietSerf's picture

Haha, Napoleon raped Europe? You mean the British Empire did, in fact it raped half the planet. Taking rice out of India or potatoes out of Ireland leaving the locals to starve was par for the course.

And look at Britain's gallant allies vs Napoleon. Reactionary Austria, neo-feudal Prussia and the slave state known as the Russian Empire (serfdom = slavery). All Britain did vs Napoleon was to make the world safe to be plundered by Britain, and Europe safe for aristocracy and serfdom. And what a great idea it turned out to be to let Prussia have control of the North German Confederation. Yay for the German Empire... /sarc

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:46 | 2446692 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

It's funny how the bitching about taxes occurs at a time when income taxes are the lowest they've been in decades (at lreast in the USA).  Now if you're talking about inflation being a hidden tax, that's another story -- that IS theft. 

Some of these knee-jerk libertariarians really ought to move to somewhere with very limited or no government, and see how you like it.  It works out sort of OK, if you're a warlord, otherwise, probably not so much.  You want to build & maintain your own interstate system, postal service, national parks, hospitals, weather service, mandate your own safety standards for food, medicine, etc etc?  Go for it...

 

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:54 | 2446696 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I think for most sensible people the arguement isn't about the rate, but about how much of it is squandered on those that have no right to it.

Of course there are always those who think their right to charge for their services is inalienable and that they have every right to own what they make, and that no one has any right to take even a part of it in contribution to defend it. They just seem to forget that behind them is a government with ships, tanks and planes that will enforce their right if needed, and if they didn't there are others equally willing to walk in and simply demand it.

But we won't go into that eh...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:27 | 2446728 Sabremesh
Sabremesh's picture

Ah, somebody sensible posting on this thread, how refreshing.

It should be evident to anyone with a something other than a walnut between their ears that (except for millionaire tax haven microstates) it is impossible to have a civilized, safe, educated and healthy society without some form government, and that government cannot exist without some financial contribution from citizens in the form of taxation. 

ZH is right about most things, but the "tax is theft" mantra is just asinine.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:28 | 2446831 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Please identify this safe, healthy, educated society.  Please describe how the debt used to procure some of the aforementioned products is to be repaid? I'm sure the PIIGS are with you all the way. As France begins to fold, it will be even clearer.

The only thing refreshing is the way ignorance can continuously rear its' ugly rear end in defense of fascism.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:34 | 2446942 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Just go to the top of the page where it's all been spelled out for you. You can't miss it...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:55 | 2447532 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You still can't produce the name of this safe state. 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:20 | 2447647 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

What?

you serious?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 13:12 | 2448064 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Serious as a heart attack.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:02 | 2446117 Alexandros
Alexandros's picture

GERMANY, the DISGRACE of Europe

Germany handed all the European countries over to the Jewish loan sharks, by naively believing that this way they would let Germany free. Germany put the European family at the “target” of the “markets” and it is collecting profits every time one of its members gets “executed”. The loan sharks who pretend to be the “hunters” are shooting safely in the European “hen house” because Germany has managed to “raise walls around” Europe. One after the other, Europeans are destroyed so that Merkel can pay the stupid and artificial German debts to the loan sharks.

http://eamb-ydrohoos.blogspot.com/2012/02/germany-disgrace-of-europe.html

Authored by PANAGIOTIS TRAIANOU

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:06 | 2446121 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Will you please kindly fuck off? You're a Greek version of wanklord, copying and pasting your screed to every fucking article.

If you're just going to do drive-by postings, please just go fuck your face in the ass.

 

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:08 | 2446124 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

Jews controlling Germany and Greece?

Man, those are some smart motherfuckers

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 22:09 | 2446222 smb12321
smb12321's picture

It's now official:  You're crazy!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 03:01 | 2446588 nicxios
nicxios's picture

Interesting perspective on European history...

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 16:45 | 2445709 malikai
malikai's picture

Fact: Taxation is theft. 

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 18:45 | 2445912 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

The greater taxation is deficit spending and debt accumulation as this is delayed taxation which will hit us in future years.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 19:26 | 2445969 billwilson
billwilson's picture

Okay stop paying taxes but you don't get to use anything provided by tax dollars ... fair is fair. No roads, no fire department, no police no ....

 

What an absolutely assinine comment to start an article. We don't live on islands by ourselves so yes we do need some government and some taxation. It is reality. Deal wiht it.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 19:45 | 2445999 CH1
CH1's picture

Okay stop paying taxes but you don't get to use anything provided by tax dollars ... fair is fair. No roads, no fire department, no police no ....

DEAL!!!

Where can I sign the papers? I want to sign NOW!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 00:07 | 2446434 prole
prole's picture

CH1 Make sure they have 2 lines on the contract, because I'm signing right under you. Finally a "social contract" we can all believe in. And Bill Wilson can fvck himself on the roads, because my parents, my grandparents, and my own bad self paid for those roads via taxation and gas tax, so those roads belong to me. Bill Wilson you GTFO my roads.

Okay stop paying taxes but you don't get to use anything provided by tax dollars ... fair is fair. No roads, no fire department, no police no ....

I agree with you 100%. Fair is fair, your heroes noted above are fired and I don't pay any more tax. Done, Deal, let's sign it. Oh and you and your heroes are kicked off my roads that I paid for and you obviously DID NOT pay for as you are a tax eater and a parasite.

What an absolutely assinine comment to start an article. We don't live on islands by ourselves so yes we do need some government and some taxation. It is reality. Deal with it.

No "we" don't need government. "We" only need to stop stealing money from my pocket to put in your pocket. "We" don't need taxes, "we" need taxes to die, today, forever.  The only thing we do have to deal with is the fact that thugs like you have turned my once free nation into a giant prison. That sad fact we have to deal with.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 00:44 | 2446474 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You know what's even more insulting? I paid for these fucking roads, and yet I have to get permission from the state to drive on them. On MY roads.

It's no coincidence that drivers licenses began to be required in 1933. That was one shitty year for freedom.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:45 | 2446648 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Yes but you didn't pay for them on your own did you, and unless your way to old to drive now, you didn't pay for them all either did you?

We used to have a system where anyone could drive regardless of ability. Freedom was wearing someone else's bumper you didn't ask for, and then slowly starving to death with your family because you couldn't work anymore. But hey, the drivers (who were wealthy because they were the only ones able to afford motor cars) did ok, once they'd removed the steering wheel from their teeth and the butler had removed all those unwanted body parts from the front grille.

Realistically though, I think we can all agree that a driving license is pretty much a mutually beneficial thing in society, and that we all should have one if we are to be left in charge of a motor car even if it is on roads we have all already paid for. Tolls though are a different matter...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:56 | 2446865 prole
prole's picture

Freedom was wearing someone else's bumper you didn't ask for, and then slowly starving to death with your family because you couldn't work anymore. But hey, the drivers (who were wealthy because they were the only ones able to afford motor cars) did ok, once they'd removed the steering wheel from their teeth and the butler had removed all those unwanted body parts from the front grille.

Statist nonsense. Cars are nothing more than big skateboards with engine. I will gladly embrace freedom and share the road with my fellow man woman and child, and you and your sainted thug enforcers are all fired. Without your bureaucratic police state cars would also cost MUCH less once we don't have to pay 4 times for a car, as now, where every car purchase also must fund one vehicle for a bureaucrat, one for a thug and one for someone in a faraway land.

Realistically though, I think we can all agree that a driving license is pretty much a mutually beneficial thing in society, and that we all should have one if we are to be left in charge of a motor car even if it is on roads we have all already paid for. Tolls though are a different matter...

No such thing. I absolutely refute anything you declare, with a gun in my face, that WE must agree on. Drivers licenses are slave badges full stop. And why does every police state dictat declared by a socialist as "beneficial thing for society" make me want to throw up?

Arbeit Macht Frei

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:44 | 2446961 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I'm not a Statist. I'm a responsible adult, with responsible, well behaved and well educated family.

So let me see, I get completely pissed and flatten your wife and kids in my car, would you really say I'd done nothing wrong?

'I will gladly embrace freedom and share the road with my fellow man woman and child,' - me too, I just feel a lot safer knowing that drivers eyes were tested and not just counted, and that they had at least some ability to stop and steer before they set off at high speed in my general direction.

That's not Statist bullshit, that's common sense...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:38 | 2447459 prole
prole's picture

You are a cheerleader for totalitarian police state government. Your example rings true, because if you did get drunk and flatten my wife and kids, that would mean you are probably a federal officer or a judge or prosecutor, someone of higher rank and power, for whom drunk driving laws do not apply. You would be whisked away from the scene of your murderous act, and protected by your "fellow officers" and the court would muddle up and delay the case until you were exonerated completely. In my opinion, you would have done something wrong, but since I am a untermensch or "regular civilian" my opinion would not matter in the slightest.

Give me Liberty, or give me death.

PS- I do not think you are stupid. You are probably very clever, much smarter then me, and you have a nice federal job stuffing your pockets with taxpayers money, (doing absolutely nothing of value to the world) thus you encourage slaves like me to be content in our bondage, because it is good for you. I merely repudiate your false words of deceit, and ask you to kindly stop pointing that gun at me and stop stealing my money. TIA

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:51 | 2447511 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Good grief you seem to have made this up all on your own.

I am not a 'a federal officer or a judge or prosecutor, someone of higher rank and power', just a guy having a few beers and driving on a public road without a licence or any other restriction because its my basic freedom to do so... So what's next? Should we restrict these people, with a licence, and other laws?

'You would be whisked away from the scene of your murderous act, and protected by your "fellow officers" and the court would muddle up and delay the case until you were exonerated completely' But I have committed no crime in this restriction free world of yours, so why would anyone want to whisk me away and protect me? Surely all I need do is to wipe the blood stains off my car, or better still come and demand that you fixed the damage caused by your 'wife's head'?

and no I don't work for any government or bank, and no I don't receive any of your tax money either...

'Give me Liberty, or give me death.' I suspect that under your system you will probably have both, one very soon after the other...

and that you are smart enough to figure that out.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:18 | 2446631 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

So who is going to pay for the maintenance of these roads made by someone else's effort that you just laid claim to?

or perhaps we should just not bother with them eh?

You never lived in a free nation, and neither did anyone else. Fact is that society requires that its laws be maintained, and that means paying for someone to do it.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:52 | 2446657 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

Customer, you know, the guys who actually use the roads, they can pay for.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:54 | 2446665 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

So having paid to build it, you then have to pay to use it?

That sucks...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:21 | 2446681 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

Of cours, once build, a road don't maintain itself magically, there are upkeep costs, it is not free.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:39 | 2446690 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

so, should everyone who might use it contribute 'a bit' or should only those that do use it pay for it?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:04 | 2446709 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

Only those who use it, as railroads, airports, harbors, space station, etc...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:13 | 2446714 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

so, if we can agree that the most used roads are local roads, can we agree then that interstates and motorways will eventually fall into disrepair thereby forcing all commerce onto the local roads?

Do you see a problem here for defence?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:14 | 2446715 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

I didn't notice the french private network of motorways, that you pay only when you use it, was a human desert. Thank you.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:23 | 2446724 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Who paid to build the French private motorways?

and no one here has said anything about deserts yet...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:59 | 2446872 prole
prole's picture

You have taken my once free nation, and turned it into a desert. If we were not enslaved by your bureaucratic police state, commerce and human freedom would flourish like no other time in history.

WHY don't you give freedom a chance Comrade? Arbeit Macht Frei

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:21 | 2446905 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

you mean anarchy?

No thanks, I value my safety and that of my family, and rather like the idea that if you don't pay me, I can sue your arse...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:26 | 2447428 prole
prole's picture

Government, the greatest industrial mass-murderer in the history of mankind. I wonder what slaves and collectivists like you thought when they were themselves imprisoned in Stalin's Gulags, right before they died, starved to death by their God: Government? Are they confused? Is it a masochists ultimate satisfaction? Only a slave could understand this kind of mindset.

As for me, give me Liberty or give me death

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:23 | 2447655 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Now the African didn't have government did they, and the nasty British took them to America didn't they. How did that work out?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:14 | 2446716 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

I didn't notice the french private network of motorways, that you pay only when you use it, was a human desert. Thank you.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:05 | 2446710 Sanksion
Sanksion's picture

Only those who use it, as railroads, airports, harbors, space station, etc...

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 19:54 | 2446021 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

You might need someone to hold your hand and teach you to lift the toilet seat, but don't include everyone else in your childish assertion.

Read some history, read about how people travelled into new lands without anything more than what they could carry. Learn how western civilization essentially took root this way. People relying on themselves and their peers. No government anywhere to be seen...

Roads do not need government (ever travelled on a toll road?) and as for the fire department argument, I wont even bother to answer. You are still blinded by the matrix and still cannot use your imagination to think of any alternatives to your own tiny dependent needs.

You do not have any right to claim any of my time sweat, property or loyalty, and if by chance you were in government in a country that I inhabited you still would not have that right.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 23:17 | 2446329 Cosimo de Medici
Cosimo de Medici's picture

So I was heading out to the packy to pick up some hootch (damn, I hope I don't get one of those upstarts selling wood alky;  I hate the thought of being a guinea pig until "the market" punishes), and went straight from Verizon Lane on to the Blackstone Group Expressway because they were having a special today on four wheel privates under 4000 lbs gross.  I slipped off the Lloyd Blankfein exit (x666 on the Googlemap) and barreled headlong up Pfizer Blvd to Xe Street and into the mall.  It sucked to have to stop to pay five tolls, but I hear all our cars are going to be installed with autoboxes so they can just debit our accounts, not that I'd worry about any private group knowing my exact travel movements.  I mean, Facebook wasn't intrusive, right?  Truth be known, those toll collectors on Xe Street were a little creepy with their silenced MP5s, but one probably can never be too careful with possible gate jumpers.  It's business.  Personally, I wouldn't off someone cause they stiffed me on a fifty cent toll, but to each according to his abilities, I guess.  Anyway, I contract my private home protection and debt collection services to Erik Prince, so I should be good.  Heck, I even had one of the Xe gangs castrate that slug who was I thought was messing with my daughter.  Man, twenty lean mean fighting machines (for hire) moving like a tornado through that trailer park.  Poor slob never saw them coming, as if he and his gang could have stopped them anyway.  Okay, it was the wrong guy, but can't be too careful.  Plus I can afford it and that new soprano and his family haven't a pot to piss in, so it's not like they have recourse.  They can't afford an enforcer, that's their tough luck, and Xe don't work pro bono.  And you know what the loser said before they cut off his balls?  "You can't do that".  Damn if I can't.  Stop me if you can, buddy.  Like there ought to be a law, huh?  Ha Ha Ha.  Can't we all just get along?  Ha Ha Ha.  Darwin rocks, baby!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 00:49 | 2446484 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

Sounds like something better than we have now.

At least the graft in your example is out in the open.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 05:47 | 2446693 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Since when do I need any 'rights' when I can simply take by force?

You might want to go think about that before you go settling anymore 'new' lands, which incidentally aren't new, and already belong to someone else.

and yes I'd like to hear your fire brigade argument, if you don't mind...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:44 | 2446736 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

Look I will Dumb it down for you ok.

Volunteer organizations do work.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~cfabrig/

Motorists already pay fuel taxes.

Is there any other concepts that you are hazy on?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:14 | 2446801 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

ok, let's do it the slow way. 'You do not have any right to claim any of my time sweat, property or loyalty, and if by chance you were in government in a country that I inhabited you still would not have that right.'

I don't need the right, I just need the might. When you've built your toll road and I drive through without paying, how are you going to collect? because I'm not going to pay you unless I absolutely have to.

Do feel free to dumb it down as much as you like, because you're not making any sense. You just appear to be a little naive.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:46 | 2446857 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

What makes you think your "might" will win? Vietnam, Afganistan anyone? 

How are you going to drive through a gate? 

Perhaps, more important, what makes you think that people cannot design a better system that is privately owned and operated? Are government agents somehow smarter than everyone else? Not in my experience.

Look at you, intentionally attempting to blow up a thread and you're incapable of producing a lucid thought. 

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:42 | 2446979 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Ok let me try and make this simple. I pitch up with my crane and simply lift your gate off the ground, take it away to the nearest scrap yard and smelt it. Now I get to use the benefits of your labour for free.

Now what's to stop me from doing that in your cozy little world without policemen and soldiers?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:57 | 2447540 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

A gun. You're not too bright, are you?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:43 | 2447659 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

but my mates have got two guns, which makes me smarter than you...

aaand Jackpot, you lose...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 13:17 | 2448081 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

And my neighbors have you surrounded. Or, I have called my private security service. Extreme examples are pretty useless, like all your arguments. 

Societies have an incentive to get along and thus, they do. Conflict is an aberration, but when encountered, same societies have reasonable methods of resolving them.

Really, read a book.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 21:09 | 2449343 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

And now we get to the 'my guns are bigger than your guns and I have more of them argument,' which means that by your argument, whoever has the most guns and men wins, which means that the State with it's taxpayer funded army is the ultimate enforcer in the game, and ultimately enforces all contracts because no matter how many guns you have, the State will kick your arse if you don't abide by the rules.

So now we can go back to the courts to settle our differences instead of fighting all these private wars you just alluded to.

And at least now we can agree, you lose.

Thanks for playing.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:14 | 2446887 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

Anyone can break the rules if they are sufficiently powerful, we see that in our society today where (Many would argue) the criminals are working WITH the government.

In a free society there must still be law and law enforcement but only to the extent needed to ensure the liberty of the population. In many places almost none would be needed. In other places much more.

In your hypothetical scenario what is to stop the toll road operator from seeking tenders from industry for an innovative solution to the problem you have created? This could be funded through an increase in your personal toll or exclusion from using the road altogether. If you miss paying on one occasion that will hardly hurt the operator?

I don't really see how this is a problem, unless you form your own small army and take over a portion of the country that the road is in, in which case it's maintenance will become your problem :)(joke).

The difference today is that the government is not (protecting liberty) but removing it from the people. The latter will end up taking a lot more money and effort than the former.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:29 | 2446934 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Ok Grogman, I have just spelled this out to Sean 7K at the top of this page , but let's deal with this.

Anyone can break the rules if they are sufficiently powerful, JACKPOT. Now who is sufficiently powerful, and how are they paid for?

we see that in our society today where (Many would argue) the criminals are working WITH the government.

In a free society there must still be law and law enforcement but only to the extent needed to ensure the liberty of the population. OK, so just what is this, who decides, and what happens if me and my mates gang together to refuse it? How far does it go, who is coming to sort us out and who is going to pay for it?

In many places almost none would be needed. In other places much more.

In your hypothetical scenario what is to stop the toll road operator from seeking tenders from industry for an innovative solution to the problem you have created? This could be funded through an increase in your personal toll or exclusion from using the road altogether. If you miss paying on one occasion that will hardly hurt the operator? So what is to stop me pitching up with my battery powered aligator saw, removing his barrier and giving him the middle finger?

I don't really see how this is a problem, unless you form your own small army and take over a portion of the country that the road is in,Now you nailed it. The State needs sufficient resources to prevent any gang from becoming sufficiently powerful and doing as I've said. Without taxes, how will this be paid for?

in which case it's maintenance will become your problem :)(joke).

The difference today is that the government is not (protecting liberty) but removing it from the people. The latter will end up taking a lot more money and effort than the former. I didn't disagree with that. In fact it was the basis of my first statement above.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:50 | 2447007 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

I already answered your questions (such as they are) in the previous post. But as they are obviously difficult concepts for you to grasp I will sumarise.

Who pays? = road operator ( cost is passed on to users through tolls)

Who enforces = industry solutions or local enforcement if needed.

Just remember no question is TOO stupid for the friendly folks here at Zero Hedge....

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:38 | 2447481 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Like I said, I'm not going to pay your 'road operator', I'm just going to use your road, whenever it suits me and for free. So how are you going to force me to pay you, go away or stop? Because I'm not going to until you do, and then, when I discover that you have no enforcement I'm simply going to get one of my 'mates' to put a gun to your childrens heads and force you to build me my own private road.

'industry solutions or local enforcement if needed' - That sound a bit lame. So in in what form is this 'enforcement' and who pays for it? You haven't answered the question.

Just remember no question is TOO stupid for the friendly folks here at Zero Hedge.... yes, I can see that now. Lucky for you...

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 20:03 | 2446030 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Why do people think the government is the only way to have services? People cannot come together as a community or block or section and commit to the payment of costs to supply services?

The choice is voluntary versus coercion. Now, can you stop and think about the choice and which one sounds like it is the result of freedom and responsibility? Are you an adult? Are you capable of making decisions? Or do you need someone that is bribed by a corporation, has no idea who you are or what your needs are spending your hard earned wealth for you? 

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:36 | 2446640 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'The choice is voluntary versus coercion.'

Riiiight, so I'm now going to volunatrily decide not to pay you. How are you going to collect in this wonderfully friendly little world of yours?

Just curious, because me and my mates have voluntarily banded together to say no, and we look after each others interests...

Now what are you going to do? Call the cops that don't exist because you didn't pay them? Call out the local militia you haven't got?

Listen to yourself for Christs' sake, it's pure fucking idiocy...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 07:51 | 2446863 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

If you only had a working brain...what makes you think you will get a product if you don't pay? 

As for collection, there are numerous private means of creating order in a community: arbitration panels, private security, etc. People that work for you, the consumer, not the State. These systems already exist and work just fine. 

Of course, people could make improvements and probably would as they enjoyed the reduced cost of having zero government, even the freedom to think outside the box of fascism. 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 08:21 | 2446914 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

They work because of what I've just described to you at the top of this page.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 13:19 | 2448088 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

What part of private do you not understand?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 21:12 | 2449347 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

The lame arsed bit you keep going on about that we've already demonstrated doesn't work.

You demonstrate one example of where 'These systems already exist and work just fine.' without the ultimate protection and backing of the military.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 20:15 | 2446044 HK
HK's picture

Living in Hawaii, I was familar with this case.  A road, which was estimated by the state to cost $4 million to repair and could have taken a couple years to complete based upon the paperwork and funding, was fixed in 8 days by private citizens for FREE. I think we could find some productive work out here for the Bernanke.

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/private-citizens-perform-4-million-road-r...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 03:30 | 2446610 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Oh, great!  Who is going to take care of the contractor's brother-in-law now?  Who is going to pay for the County Supervisors pool or the mayor's wife's facelift?  People should really think before they go off half-cocked like that.    

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 20:31 | 2446074 nantucket
nantucket's picture

agree, ridiculous statement.  the US founding documents allow the Govt to raise funds to carry out its enumerated powers.  it was an agreed upon exchange betwen citizen and govt.  if YOU personally don't agree with it, work through the legal system to change it or leave, you have the right to do either.  every friggin keyboard philosopher on this website thinks they have a better solution for a more open, prosperous, and liberty-based society, when in realtiy they know dick compared to the founders.  The founders weren't perfect, none of us are, but for all its falults, they still created an incredibly impressive system.  Taxes are a crucial part of the trade off of living in a civil society.  the BIG EFFIN problem is that the central govt has SO MASSIVELY overstepped the bounds of its limited, enumerated powers that it's a damn tragedy.  the central govt has so far overstepped its bounds that the founders would not even recognize the US today.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 20:45 | 2446098 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

So, keyboard philosopher, tell me when they asked YOU if you wanted to belong? When did you sign the Constitution? You do understand contracts? Please tell me where in the Constitution, it is written that states cannot secede from the union? 

Now, you might begin to understand the police power of the state.

The "Founders" were a voting minority, depending on the state (and two first chose not to join, but eventually capituated under economic threat) comprising between 3 and 12 % of the population. 

The convention was never agreed to by the standing government, as defined by the articles of confederation nor did the founders respect the amendment process of this government.

The Constitution was a coup d'tat. One of the main purposes being the collection of war debts by speculators and the merchantilists that lent to the cause. A cause that would benefit their business enterprises.

There is nothing "civil" about debt slavery. 

You recognize that the present government has overstepped its' bounds (that would mean violated the law), yet you want to defend its' continued existence?  Please read a dictionary- Stockholm syndrome.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:34 | 2446157 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

For me, at immigation ceremony age 8. Then saying pledge of allegiance in school every day.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:51 | 2446185 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

And how much of contract law did you understand at eight?  Of course, I'm just jealous, I was born and raised here, but was never given the opportunity. I did get all the propaganda in school though.

However, as an adult, if this is your choice, best of luck.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:34 | 2446158 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

For me, at immigation ceremony age 8. Then saying pledge of allegiance in school every day.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 22:15 | 2446236 CH1
CH1's picture

Lick the state's boots as you wish, but don't hold a gun to my head to force me to do the same.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 00:15 | 2446449 prole
prole's picture

I think it would be proper to say "forced to say pledge of allegiance in youth confinement and indoctrination facility every day, by force of arms."

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 00:51 | 2446487 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The founders tried real hard, but the Constitution was an abject failure. The results speak for themselves. The War Between The States was the first obvious piece of evidence that the Constitution was a failure, if the South had won, maybe we wouldnt be in the mess we are today.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 20:33 | 2446080 Popo
Popo's picture

> "Okay stop paying taxes but you don't get to use anything provided by tax dollars ... fair is fair. No roads, no fire department, no police no ...."

I'm pretty sure that every expat in the world would take that deal in a nanosecond. Try living abroad and paying taxes to a distant government for 10 years, and tell me it doesn't start to seem like you're a slave.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:10 | 2446128 Sojourner.
Sojourner.'s picture

Mt 22:17 "Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
 19 "Show Me the tax money." So they brought Him a denarius.
 20 And He said to them, "Whose image and inscription is this?"
 21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:36 | 2446161 Catullus
Catullus's picture

Spare us.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html

...did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar – a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant, and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed and enslaved millions of people, including Jesus’ own? The answer, of course, is: the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is simply wrong. Jesus never meant for His answer to be interpreted as an endorsement of Caesar’s tribute or any taxes.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 23:26 | 2446359 Cosimo de Medici
Cosimo de Medici's picture

"Jesus never meant...."  Of course?

You mean to tell me Lew Rockwell was there?  Or does he just have a hotline to God like Pat Robertson?  Kind of glad I'm not so religious, because getting caught between Biblical Strict Constructionists and Interpreters probably opens up a lot of cans of worms.  One demands fluency in a dead language or two, while the other pretty much lets everybody see what they want to see.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 01:21 | 2446524 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

That response is stupid about five different ways.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 00:03 | 2446426 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

It was even simpler than that really the way I see it.

Notice how he drew attention to the head of caesar?

Now if you happened to have your OWN gold or silver coin, with "NO" picture on it.....

That is to say something tangible that only derived it's value from "IT'S OWN WEIGHT OF MATERIAL" and was "Not originated or controlled by Government"

Then is that Object automatically payable to Caesar?

It would seem not ?

The way I read this story, a clever distinction was made...

Government money = payable. Free Market money or barter = not applicable.

Hmmm...

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 20:59 | 2446112 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Okay stop paying taxes but you don't get to use anything provided by tax dollars ... fair is fair. No roads, no fire department, no police no ....What an absolutely assinine comment to start an article. We don't live on islands by ourselves so yes we do need some government and some taxation."

Your premise is "some government". The question now arises, which government?

Do we really need a federal government dictating/blackmailing the individual states on their roads, fire departments, police, education etc.? 

I see a can of worms...let's open it up & see what crawls out ;-)

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:42 | 2446168 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

up here, warren, comma, elizabeth says that the gubment is the only way that thingies get made.  So she wants to tax everyone's wigwam.  She thinks taxing "all government" will be adequate.  However, here in the Commonwealth (ug) we have a provision in the state income tax form to permit folks who have  particular persuasions to pay at the old income tax rate.  warren, comma, elizabeth and john forbes kerrey (who, by the way, served in Veet-nam) eschew checking such bos.

Go figure.

- Ned

 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 04:51 | 2446660 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1

I don't understand why your comment would get junked...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 06:21 | 2446722 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Apparently, a 1/32 junk gets rounded up to the closest whole ;-)

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:22 | 2446141 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

No roads? Really? If we stopped having our wages garnished by the Federal government, no roads? In the southwest region, the FHA has probably about 30 people, the EPA has about 1200. Without the Federal government, we'd most certainly have more roads. Words cannot express my disdain for you. You are perpetuating a system of lies and theft. A guillotine is too kind to folks like you.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 21:52 | 2446188 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

dude, I'm with ya.  But ya gotta' think through the whole guillotine thing/scenario.  Like--how does the neck get there?  Is that bastard Ashcroft the AG?  Who is the AG?  Who has he worked to pardon?  Who has he let go with a winning case? ??

I'm kinda' pissed off, but, well not going to break with US laws and the clear meaning of the Constitution.

So, I'm giving you a reddie and if Sac will let me, I'm giving you a greenie. 'cuz (and he did!) you have a great point and a truly bad-assed approach to fixing stuff.  You propose a fricken' disaster and, well, I've been conditioned to avoid same.

- Ned

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 22:24 | 2446255 billwilson
billwilson's picture

Unlike you I will side with government as opposed to the F*&^%ing corporations that want to rape us. At least with a government I have some chance. With a corporation - NONE! Unrestricted they will lay waste to everything.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 00:24 | 2446455 prole
prole's picture

Please don't use the word "us" while you are pointing a gun at me.

You are a prison guard, I am a prisoner. It is highly insulting for you to use the word "us" amongst "us"

Larry the Cable guy and two or three of his deer hunting buddies could take on any corporation, but when the truly sinister corporations like Monsatan, get the entire millions "man" police and army behind them to destroy the US small farmers and freedom of choice on healthy foods, guess what the thugs (which is you) win.

Give me the corporations and get the .gov out of the way and me and Larry Cable guy will be fine.

I would like to see "Solyndra" steal 500 mil without an entire government army behind them to do it.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 22:14 | 2446235 smb12321
smb12321's picture

But...roads are supposed to be paid for with gasoline taxes - remember?  But no, we use (in Tennessee) road taxes to build nice "testing centers" around the state for the citizen to pay $10 for some moron to "test" emissions.   This goes on twelve months a year.  Fire departments are paid by local municipalities.   Teachers and police are also paid locally. We need massive federal taxes for one reason - the relentless growth of the State.

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 22:33 | 2446272 Estrella
Estrella's picture

Bill, you do know you are posting on Zeorhedge don't you?

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 16:45 | 2445712 derek_vineyard
derek_vineyard's picture

not to be a smart ass, but if all taxation is theft...then it should be voluntary?

Sun, 05/20/2012 - 17:04 | 2445747 foxenburg
foxenburg's picture

well, we've obvously got to have a framework. if you want to live in a county you've got to pay your share of the MINIMAL costs of running the show. then you can factor in a margin to help the "vulnerable" and a safety factor for emergencies. you arrive at a figure of say $5k a head. and that should be it, whether you earn peanuts or billions. the guys that earn billions can't eat the stuff, it's got to work its way into the economy. govt ought to get the fuck out of the way.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!