I don't even live on the President's land. I live on my land. The idea that I should be paying taxes in order to live on land I own is ridiculous.
What country did you steal your land from? 
Topic: Why are people scared of taxes? - page 33. (Read 31541 times)
It all sounds so nice and agreeable and friendly. The reality was that the king was a thug who took what he wanted because he could and your new kings are thugs wearing suits.
Did you copy this from Karl Marx? 
You know, I've been called a lot of things, but "commie" isn't usually one of them. Thanks, I needed the laugh. I don't live on the Kings land. I don't even live on the President's land. I live on my land. The idea that I should be paying taxes in order to live on land I own is ridiculous.
When in the Course of human events... yada yada yada.
Why is this forum suddenly full of commies who argue against the right to property?
Nice try.
Some commies, like you and Kim Il Jung, don't believe in property. I believe in property. And I can't understand how you can talk about theft if you don't respect property. Living on the king's land without paying the rent (tax) is theft.
You know, I've been called a lot of things, but "commie" isn't usually one of them. Thanks, I needed the laugh. I don't live on the Kings land. I don't even live on the President's land. I live on my land. The idea that I should be paying taxes in order to live on land I own is ridiculous.
A long time ago some king either fought for or more likely traded the land you live on. The deal was simple. He secured the land against threats from the outside, and often organized some form of security and justice on the inside, and your forefathers paid tax and had to serve in his army to protect all of the kings land. The king sold the rights to exclusive exploitation of parts of the land to inhabitants, including the right to tax people using it on top of the kings tax. But the king is still king, and everyone living on the king's land have to pay tax.
It all sounds so nice and agreeable and friendly. The reality was that the king was a thug who took what he wanted because he could and your new kings are thugs wearing suits.
Are you this stupid, or just retarded?
If you don't want to pay taxes, you can move out in international waters. Problem solved. If you choose to live in a country, you have to obey the laws there. No one will force you to live in your country, unless it is North Korea. (On the other hand, there are probably no taxes in North Korea because everything already is owned by the state, so you may be happy there.)
Are you this stupid, or just retarded?If you don't want to pay taxes, you can move out in international waters. Problem solved. If you choose to live in a country, you have to obey the laws there. No one will force you to live in your country, unless it is North Korea. (On the other hand, there are probably no taxes in North Korea because everything already is owned by the state, so you may be happy there.)
Why is this forum suddenly full of commies who argue against the right to property?
That's like saying that if you choose to remain in the territory of a gang, you choose to be mugged every day.
Let me ask you something: If a bunch of your neighbors got together and agreed, by majority vote, to take half of your money, and even wrote it down to be all official, would that make it alright?
This is not about a bunch of neighbours or mob. This is about private property rights.Let me ask you something: If a bunch of your neighbors got together and agreed, by majority vote, to take half of your money, and even wrote it down to be all official, would that make it alright?
A long time ago some king either fought for or more likely traded the land you live on. The deal was simple. He secured the land against threats from the outside, and often organized some form of security and justice on the inside, and your forefathers paid tax and had to serve in his army to protect all of the kings land. The king sold the rights to exclusive exploitation of parts of the land to inhabitants, including the right to tax people using it on top of the kings tax. But the king is still king, and everyone living on the king's land have to pay tax.
Fast forward through revolutions and reform until today. You still live on the king's land. The laws are more formalized, and the king may be replaced with presidents and democracies and whatnot, but the principle stays the same. You have to respect the king's laws as long as you live on his land.
Some commies, like you and Kim Il Jung, don't believe in property. I believe in property. And I can't understand how you can talk about theft if you don't respect property. Living on the king's land without paying the rent (tax) is theft.
No, that would be unacceptable because they are using majority rule, but not respecting the rights of the minority, as specified in the constitution.
OK, first, reference the section of the constitution where that is specified. I have a paper copy, so you can simply tell me where, I can look it up myself.
Second, how is a group of your neighbors deciding you have too much money any different from taxation?
No, that would be unacceptable because they are using majority rule, but not respecting the rights of the minority, as specified in the constitution.
Please answer YES or NO:
If a bunch of your neighbors got together and agreed, by majority vote, to take half of your money, and even wrote it down to be all official, would that make it alright?
If your answer does not at least START with one of those two words, I will consider the answer to be "No, but I don't want to say that," and this conversation is over.
If a bunch of your neighbors got together and agreed, by majority vote, to take half of your money, and even wrote it down to be all official, would that make it alright?
If your answer does not at least START with one of those two words, I will consider the answer to be "No, but I don't want to say that," and this conversation is over.
But they are not taking half of their money. Only yours. You are not the only one who pays taxes.
Citizenship at birth. Responsibilities and rights yada yada.
But still no signature...You still haven't answered my question. Care to take a stab at it?
Which question was that?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1292220
Citizenship at birth. Responsibilities and rights yada yada.
But still no signature...You still haven't answered my question. Care to take a stab at it?
Which question was that?
Citizenship at birth. Responsibilities and rights yada yada.
But still no signature...You still haven't answered my question. Care to take a stab at it?
Citizenship at birth. Responsibilities and rights yada yada.
If you do not sign, you cannot live there. It's quite topical. It's hardly voluntary when it is compulsory.
I have not been present for the birth of a child in the US. Do they make them sign before or after the umbilical is cut?
By being born there, you are signing. Being born is a death warrant. And they make your parent sign for you on that nifty piece of paper called a birth certificate.
If you do not sign, you cannot live there. It's quite topical. It's hardly voluntary when it is compulsory.
I have not been present for the birth of a child in the US. Do they make them sign before or after the umbilical is cut?
Let me ask you something: If a bunch of your neighbors got together and agreed, by majority vote, to take half of your money, and even wrote it down to be all official, would that make it alright?
That's called a Home Owner's Association.
No, a home-owner's association is a group who has a contract for you to sign before you move in detailing things like how high you can let your grass grow, and what colors you can and can't use to paint your house. It's annoying, but it's voluntary. This is a group of your neighbors simply deciding that you have too much money, and need to share.
If you do not sign, you cannot live there. It's quite topical. It's hardly voluntary when it is compulsory.
Jump to: