Bundy refused to pay for "taxation without representation". He wants to pay his taxation to the local government, wherein he has representation.
Yeah, because he has no representation whatsoever at the federal level. He should complain to his congressman about it...
Complaining accomplishes absolutely nothing. Ditto in Europe, see link below.
You are sliding into Fascism and I am laughing at you idiots who fight
for slavery and against individual and local sovereignty (you will reap what you sow before 2020 in a horrific outcome):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6496672You want to fight against that and support taxation from Brussels (which is where this is leading if you don't draw a line in the sand as Bundy has done).
America is going to join the EU now? I speak as some-one who actually does pay taxes to Brussels, and the world hasn't ended here yet... I also have representation in the European Parliament by the way.
You don't have any representation:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/27/may-elections-in-europe-may-be-a-joke-the-invasion-of-euroskeptics-may-have-no-power/If you don't understand that the work and investments in the ranch are where all the wealth comes from, and you reject Adam Smith, then you are following Karl Marx.
What on earth are you talking about? Adam Smith never argued that land has no value, and he would have been a fool if he had. Of course investments of capital and labour into land generate wealth, but you can't make those investments without access to the land in the first place.
I get tired of dealing with people of such low IQ.
The land is not
responsible for the value creation. And responsibility is a key aspect of maximizing prosperity and minimizing the horrific outcomes of the
power vacuum of collectivism (a.k.a. democracy). When responsibility is communal, the participants are no longer responsible, e.g. welfare and insurance.
This demand for access combined with limited supply obviously means that land has value, as Adam Smith knew well - an entire chapter of The Wealth of Nations ("Of the Rent of Land") is devoted to explaining the causes of differences in value of land based on their location and inherent resources.
First of all, Adam Smith didn't understand degrees-of-freedom and entropy. I wrote the following 4 years ago:
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html#entropySecondly, no resource is ever scarce in a free market, because price always adjusts to resolve the scarcity. The key is that for this free market to work, the land must actually be free to participate in the market without obstruction by a centralized entity such as the Fed and without onerous, unjust (no local representation) taxes.
Karl Marx, on the other hand, believed that land should have no value and should be owned collectively, along with the means of production thereon.
Indeed as the Feds (BLM) is doing now. And you have supported that structure with your comments in this thread. Thanks for admitting you are a Communist.