Topic: Make sure you pay your taxes to the government that spies on you! - page 4. (Read 5568 times)

Take away it's monopoly.

The end result is the same - faith in violence as a political solution. All advocates of government, be it civil or theocratic, share this primal trait.

I didn't.  "should be no government" is a moral position like "should be no homosexuals."  There is a government right now, its not going away and the important debate is how to make it as good as possible. 

Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products

So if government is like a business, I can boycott it and find something else that works for me?

Thanks for letting me know!

If that is your idea of being the same as a Sharia advocate, you are sadly mistaken.

But you are. You advocate violence for those that don't submit to government.

In those terms, I don't accept that I am the same as a Sharia advocate.

But like those who advocate Sharia, you agree with them that if they don't pay the tax of those who claim governing authority then they should be punished.

Different masks, same actors.

Why are you intentionally eliminating the views of those that debate that there should be no government?

There is going to be some kind of government.  The debate is what is the best type of government.  I don't believe Sharia is the best type of government.  That does make me different from those that advocate Sharia.

This is true. When you steal from a retail store, it is called shoplifting. When you steal from a government, it is called tax evasion.

Saying there was an administrative issue in the "back country" doesn't change the fact the the US government has claimed to right to levy taxes from day 1.

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.

No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority

There is going to be some kind of government.  The debate is what is the best type of government.  I don't believe Sharia is the best type of government.  That does make me different from those that advocate Sharia.

And thus the argument that all governments, by their nature, are illegitimate, because they violate the rights they pretend to protect.

Actually, the best thing we can do is allow market competition to select the best providers of security from that violence, and do so in such a way that those providers do not themselves violate their customers security.

And who makes the law, Hawker? It's a democracy, right? The people make the law. Are you not people?

Saying there was an administrative issue in the "back country" doesn't change the fact the the US government has claimed to right to levy taxes from day 1.

So you're no different from those that advocate Sharia.

Ah, yes. The old Soviet argument of "You must contribute to the State for all the great things the State provides to you, comrade."

We won the argument, if you'll recall.