Fact: Taxation is violent.

[Anonymous]

People work or provide some form of value to society. Their value is returned in money. For all intents and purposes, this value is labor and the labor eventually becomes equivalent to money. Most states collect a portion of this money (called taxation) which is essentially enslaving a part of a person's labor.  Slavery can only be continued by force and ultimately death of the individual if he does not comply.

In conclusion, taxation is violent.

[1714907056]

1714907056

[1714907056]

1714907056

[1714907056]

1714907056

[1714907056]

1714907056

[AllYourBase]

I don't support violence.

[bitcredit]

Sure is, and I can't wait until all of the selfish libertarian idiots like you are taken off to Gitmo and tortured to death for your thought crimes and tax evasion. 

[nostrum]

I dont you mean it CAN be violent?

[Anonymous]

I dont you mean it CAN be violent?

If it's not violent, it's not taxation.

...and being apathetic to your slavery does not make it any less violent.

[LastReplaySC]

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot


Freedomain Radio  
Powerful ideas for all lovers of the logic of personal and political freedom - Freedomain Radio was a Top 10 Finalist in the 2007-2010 Podcast Awards, and has been named one of the 'Top 100 Most Inspiring and Innovative Blogs for Educators.' Topics range from politics to philosophy to self-knowledge to economics to relationships to religion - and how to achieve real freedom in your life. Passionate, articulate, funny and irreverent, Freedomain Radio is a philosophy conversation that shines a bold light on old topics, and invents a few new ones to boot!



do tax or violents search on stefbots 670 uploads

The Bomb in the Brain Part 3 - The Biology of Violence: The Effects of Child Abuse

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot#p/search/1/QIDvdzjzSto

[epi 1:10,000]

Who or what decides what value is?  How is that value measured?  Can perception of value be universally objective?  What value can the comatose, those with sever persistent asthma, or severely disabled add to the economy?  What of Immanuel Kant?

[Anonymous]

Who or what decides what value is?

The individuals that produce it and the ones who choose to trade for it.

How is that value measured?

By the individual producing it and the ones who desire it.

Can perception of value be universally objective?

Never.

What value can the comatose, those with sever persistent asthma, or severely disabled add to the economy?

Whatever they can produce. I am sure human empathy will be enough to serve this minority.

[bitcredit]

Whatever they can produce. I am sure human empathy will be enough to serve this minority.

And that's where you're wrong! If you'd ever been a real problem situation, if you hadn't been born with wealth and large social support network, you'd realize that this is not the case. If it were, why are children from impoverished, abusive homes living on the street? What did they ever do to deserve less opportunity than you? If society is so generous, why are they still on the street?!?!

[NghtRppr]

If you have sex with 1,001 people and 1,000 consent but 1 does not, you're a rapist.

If you take money from 1,001 people and 1,000 consent but 1 does not, you're a thief.

[Anonymous]

Whatever they can produce. I am sure human empathy will be enough to serve this minority.

And that's where you're wrong! If you'd ever been a real problem situation, if you hadn't been born with wealth and large social support network, you'd realize that this is not the case. If it were, why are children from impoverished, abusive homes living on the street? What did they ever do to deserve less opportunity than you? If society is so generous, why are they still on the street?!?!

Because it appears governments have made a near monopoly out of charity as well. Monopolies don't tend to produce the best industries especially with the weakened poor excuses of private charities we have today.

Anyways, if society is so uncaring, where are these benevolent overlords coming from?

[smellyBobby]

People work or provide some form of value to society. Their value is returned in money. For all intents and purposes, this value is labor and the labor eventually becomes equivalent to money. Most states collect a portion of this money (called taxation) which is essentially enslaving a part of a person's labor.  Slavery can only be continued by force and ultimately death of the individual if he does not comply.

In conclusion, taxation is violent.

Nice use of inductive reasoning...... And I think the word your looking for is coercive not violent .  And therby taxation is a coersive payment extracted from the individual for there goods and production, OK?

So lets examine your statement:

People work or provide some form of value to society.

And using inductive reasoning: The individual works creating an object and this object has some value to the individual. Also given there is an external world to this individual named Society, then the collective intelligence of society determines that there is some other value upon this object. Now what is fair value? Well fair value would be somewhere in between, determined by the circumstances of both the individual and society. Now WTF is stopping a coercive payment being extracted from the individual through a distortion of fair-value(aka Taxation, or Whatever term you want to use)?

So when you say OMG taxation is bad we should remove it, its so so so bad, cry cry cry, how do you suggest that create the institutions that stop coercive payments once taxation is removed? You think people are really nice and will somehow behave according to the ideal market?

[Anonymous]

Nice use of inductive reasoning...... And I think the word your looking for is coercive not violent .  And therby taxation is a coersive payment extracted from the individual for there goods and production, OK?

Coercion, violence... it's all the same. You are still using the threat of injury and eventually death.

And using inductive reasoning: The individual works creating an object and this object has some value to the individual. Also given there is an external world to this individual named Society, then the collective intelligence of society determines that there is some other value upon this object.

There is no collective intelligence. Choice is always made on an individual level.

Now what is fair value? Well fair value would be somewhere in between, determined by the circumstances of both the individual and society.

Define society. Is it some new type of sentient being? Does it really have its own consistent will?

Now WTF is stopping a coercive payment being extracted from the individual through a distortion of fair-value(aka Taxation, or Whatever term you want to use)?

So when you say OMG taxation is bad we should remove it, its so so so bad, cry cry cry, how do you suggest that create the institutions that stop coercive payments once taxation is removed? You think people are really nice and will somehow behave according to the ideal market?

People can pay for protection on an individual level. It's called a personal firearm -- and when neccessary -- a private security force.

[smellyBobby]

And using inductive reasoning: The individual works creating an object and this object has some value to the individual. Also given there is an external world to this individual named Society, then the collective intelligence of society determines that there is some other value upon this object.

There is no collective intelligence. Choice is always made on an individual leavel.

Now what is fair value? Well fair value would be somewhere in between, determined by the circumstances of both the individual and society.

Define society. Is it some new type of sentient being? Does it really have its own consistent will?

Ok, say once all the police are gone and someone is holding a gun to your head for an object you have created (This agent is external, apart of society), will that still be classified as a choice??

Thats not an individual choice... That is a coercive decision.

Now WTF is stopping a coercive payment being extracted from the individual through a distortion of fair-value(aka Taxation, or Whatever term you want to use)?

So when you say OMG taxation is bad we should remove it, its so so so bad, cry cry cry, how do you suggest that create the institutions that stop coercive payments once taxation is removed? You think people are really nice and will somehow behave according to the ideal market?

People can pay for protection on an individual level. It's called a personal firearm -- and when neccessary -- a private security force.

Sure now that there is no police, lets all have private armies. Hey you know what, instead of producing anything useful for society lets just have an army and go and take stuff from other people. Lets all have private armies, and we can have little wars against each other........ We can create dictatorships, monarchies, colonies, ............

But choice at an individual level still exists right???

[Anonymous]

Ok, say once all the police are gone and someone is holding a gun to your head for an object you have created (This agent is external, apart of society), will that still be classified as a choice??

Thats not an individual choice... That is a coercive decision.

Oh, if somebody decides make such a bold move, I will have a firearm on my side and so will my fellow man. It will most likely not be a successful endeavor on their part. The monopoly on force is gone. Everybody can have a gun and they shall.

Sure now that there is no police, lets all have private armies. Hey you know what, instead of producing anything useful for society lets just have an army and go and take stuff from other people. Lets all have private armies, and we can have little wars against each other........ We can create dictatorships, monarchies, colonies, ............

But choice is still at an individual level still exists right???

Heh, you see it wouldn't work that way. The individual's desires would win. The monopoly on banking and weapons would be gone. All private armies will have no choice but to settle on the individual's best interest and the right to life. It would not be profitable to try to conquer it all. It would be best to play nicely.

[smellyBobby]

Oh, if somebody decides make such a bold move, I will have a firearm on my side and so will my fellow man. It will most likely not be a successful endeavor on their part. The monopoly on force is gone. Everybody can have a gun and they shall.

The just shifts the monopoly into the technological realm......... Who has the better gun, access to coercive force will still be restricted in someway, thereby removing this notion of "individual choice", this is proven by human history. The whole notion that the monopoly on coercive force would somehow just vanish is absurd.

Heh, you see it wouldn't work that way. The individual's desires would win. The monopoly on banking and weapons would be gone. All private armies will have no choice but to settle on the individual's best interest and the right to life. It would not be profitable to try to conquer it all. It would be best to play nicely.

Sure if you can build an ideal world where access to capital and weapons was unrestricted, sounds like the utopian world I have wet dreams over.

[Anonymous]

Oh, if somebody decides make such a bold move, I will have a firearm on my side and so will my fellow man. It will most likely not be a successful endeavor on their part. The monopoly on force is gone. Everybody can have a gun and they shall.

The just shifts the monopoly into the technological realm......... Who has the better gun, access to coercive force will still be restricted in someway, thereby removing this notion of "individual choice", this is proven by human history. The whole notion that the monopoly on coercive force would somehow just vanish is absurd.

Heh, you see it wouldn't work that way. The individual's desires would win. The monopoly on banking and weapons would be gone. All private armies will have no choice but to settle on the individual's best interest and the right to life. It would not be profitable to try to conquer it all. It would be best to play nicely.

Sure if you can build an ideal world where access to capital and weapons was unrestricted, sounds like the utopian world I have wet dreams over.

The answer for this type of world is right in front of us. It's called Bitcoin.

[smellyBobby]

Your using a technology that is worth approx 144 Million as a premise of your argument..... Okay

[Anonymous]

Your using a technology that is worth approx 144 Million as a premise of your argument..... Okay

Give it time.

[smellyBobby]

I will also pray to the bitcoin gods to prove my beliefs true.

[ZombieRothbard]

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot


Freedomain Radio  
Powerful ideas for all lovers of the logic of personal and political freedom - Freedomain Radio was a Top 10 Finalist in the 2007-2010 Podcast Awards, and has been named one of the 'Top 100 Most Inspiring and Innovative Blogs for Educators.' Topics range from politics to philosophy to self-knowledge to economics to relationships to religion - and how to achieve real freedom in your life. Passionate, articulate, funny and irreverent, Freedomain Radio is a philosophy conversation that shines a bold light on old topics, and invents a few new ones to boot!



do tax or violents search on stefbots 670 uploads

The Bomb in the Brain Part 3 - The Biology of Violence: The Effects of Child Abuse

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot#p/search/1/QIDvdzjzSto

Molyneux sucks. Read Rothbard.

[Basiley]

fact: taxation is expensive, not working, deperecated and f fail.

[Anonymous]

fact: taxation is expensive, not working, deperecated and f fail.

Yes, we also have to look at it from a utilitarian sense. It hardly accomplishes its supposed goal.

[Basiley]

fact: taxation is expensive, not working, deperecated and f fail.

Yes, we also have to look at it from a utilitarian sense. It hardly accomplishes its supposed goal.

i put it under different angle:
society work, oppression is not.
ie, taxation is work worser than kindness/common sense/investments.

[minerops]

taxation is coercion and there's no way around that. if 99% of people consent to taxation, logic doesn't suddenly 'switch sides' to align with the majority.

EQUALITY 7-2521

[smellyBobby]

The universe is full of coercive forces, both non-human and human. The only way to remove other coercive human forces from your life is to completely remove all other humans. Otherwise in some way, directly or indirectly your life will be affected by other humans. No Ideology is beyond this simple rule......

[Anonymous]

The universe is full of coercive forces, both non-human and human. The only way to remove other coercive human forces from your life is to completely remove all other humans. Otherwise in some way, directly or indirectly your life will be affected by other humans. No Ideology is beyond this simple rule......

If all humans were on a level playing field, without monopolies on force, everything would be quite alright. The potential coercive forces would have little relevance.

[smellyBobby]

.......without monopolies on force......

This is impossible........ therefore completely removing the basis for your argument. As I have said prior.

[Basiley]

The universe is full of coercive forces, both non-human and human. The only way to remove other coercive human forces from your life is to completely remove all other humans. Otherwise in some way, directly or indirectly your life will be affected by other humans. No Ideology is beyond this simple rule......

If all humans were on a level playing field, without monopolies on force, everything would be quite alright. The potential coercive forces would have little relevance.

anyone can [try]backup anything.
but thats backup them enough to forgive ? not always.

[AntiVigilante]

.......without monopolies on force......

This is impossible........ therefore completely removing the basis for your argument. As I have said prior.

What's impossible is the nonexistence of a power vacuum. Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

[smellyBobby]

.......without monopolies on force......

This is impossible........ therefore completely removing the basis for your argument. As I have said prior.

What's impossible is the nonexistence of a power vacuum. Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

Thankyou for making the point more concise.

[smellyBobby]

What's impossible is the nonexistence of a power vacuum. Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

Minarchism is a new concept to me are you an advocate for it?

Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

How is this possible?

[Anonymous]

What's impossible is the nonexistence of a power vacuum. Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

Minarchism is a new concept to me are you an advocate for it?

I used to be a Minarchist until I realized the law can be manipulated to those in power at will.

[smellyBobby]

What's impossible is the nonexistence of a power vacuum. Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

Minarchism is a new concept to me are you an advocate for it?

I used to be a Minarchist until I realized the law can be manipulated to those in power at will.

That is also what I'm thinking.

Such things will be constrained by the inherent altruistic/exploitative characteristics of human agents and how agents within society participate.

I'm beginning to think that human society should be based around the flow of information between human agents. Both the amount of information and quality of information. There would be one obvious issue, I.P. But to me I.P is way of receiving recognition, so when transferring the I.P concept into the new "Information based society" you we need to ensure that the flow of information contains the "recognizing component" of I.P.

I guess another issue is when you have two "Information" states at war, hence the flow of information within each state would need to change in some way to protect each state.

But I guess the biggest issue is the coercion of agents to exchange information. Would coercion be necessary?

Maybe not. Agents would have an incentive to exchange information to gain the insight of other agents. Then what is guaranteeing the exchange protocol?

What information should be shared? Any information that affects the welfare of other agents.  <-- Principle 1.

Okay, would coercion of agents to exchange information be necessary?
Given Principle 1. then this will depend on the altruistic/exploitative nature of the agent. It will depend upon the irrational components of the agent governing its existence and how these irrational components relate to other agents. For example human decisions are driven by emotional things like, hunger, the love for family, the empathy for another individual, the hate for another individual and the desire to see them suffer, the fear of others opinions, etc. Naturally this will vary from between individuals. I will concede that in IMO based upon my empirical view of the world, that some amount of coercion will be necessary. Hmm does this imply that no practical ideology can exist without coercion?

What about the case of "no information" ?

Moving on. Coercion will be necessary. <-- Principle 2.

Prove this. Must prove that there will exist a set of circumstances where a human agent will not share information that affects the welfare of other agents. Why would they not want to share information? A side point: That there is a limit on the transfer rate, but this is not really relevant, in such a scenario there would be some pre-defined set of protocols assigning transfer priorities to different types of information and the society as a whole would be responsible.
Why would they not want to share information? Because it is impossible to have an entire set of emotional protocols for each other human agent?

Okay so given the ideal case where each agent has a set of emotional protocols for each other agent in the Society. An emotional function is a function governing a particular emotional  response an agent will have to a scenario. The welfare function is a vector representing the sum of all emotional functions. All other agents within society seek to maximize each others welfare function, based upon the maximiseWelfareFunction. The maximiseWelfareFunction takes the vector from the welfare function and outputs a vector of length 1.

So given the ideal I_WelfareFunction, a hypothetical function that will correctly output the welfare_vector_1 of an agent for all emotional function outputs. Okay implicit constraints, the set of emotional functions must be non-infinite, emotional functions must be static.

[Assume this based upon real life, i.e for any agent to survive throughout time it must change it's emotional response to the same hazardous situation in life]
Prove emotional functions are dynamic, that they change through time. This implies that I_WelfareFunction can never exist as it would require knowledge of future events, and that the set of I_WelfareFunction functions each agent has would be imperfect.

[Assume this based upon real life, i.e people's emotional responses are shaped by others]
Prove that there exists 2 agents whose WelfareFunction is determined by each other. This is situation is impossible because as soon as one individual's WelfareFunction changes then this would start a never-ending change of each others WelfareFunctions. Hence it is necessary for the existence of "no information".

[This can be proven from real life.]
Prove that there exists for the set(InformationTypes) a situation where WelfareFunction("No information") results in the a maximum. This shows that there will be a situation where someone will think that to maximize an-others WelfareFunction it is best not to send information, but given that the WelfareFunction is imperfect then there will be time when this is incorrect, and should have shared information. This is a poor point in itself.

Somehow prove that on average; given any agent(1) with WelfareFunction(o..1), let WelfareFunction(c..1) represent Community Cumulative Welfare Function of agent(1), that for each individual WelfareFunction(i..1) representing the WelfareFunction agent i has of agent 1, that WelfareFunction(i..1) will on average perform less than WelfareFunction(c..1). Do this for all agents. This is essentially saying that on average the community will be a better judge of someone else s WelfareFunction than any one particular individual. This implicitly shows that information about any agent must be transferred to achieve the maximization of the WelfareFunction.  

To incomplete.

Show information -> welfare.

information is the change in energy configuration, and given energy <-> mass, then information -> mass?

[AntiVigilante]

What's impossible is the nonexistence of a power vacuum. Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

Minarchism is a new concept to me are you an advocate for it?

Hell no. I vote for no established *-archy. An emergent micro-archy, one of system watchers which is public and engages the community, like this forum, is preferable. I'd even support a few sekrit clubs that would hasten the shocks necessary to bring business interest rather than speculation. If the ones I know about are around what's to say of the ones I don't know of.

Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

How is this possible?

By being more diligent and active than the purely opportunistic players. Suit up. Flameproof undies on. May or may not be checked by TSA for a suspiciously small but explosive package.

[epi 1:10,000]

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/05/taxation-and-slaverytheft/

[rainsford]

The universe is full of coercive forces, both non-human and human. The only way to remove other coercive human forces from your life is to completely remove all other humans. Otherwise in some way, directly or indirectly your life will be affected by other humans. No Ideology is beyond this simple rule......

If all humans were on a level playing field, without monopolies on force, everything would be quite alright. The potential coercive forces would have little relevance.

Except all humans being on a level playing field implies much more than simply a lack of a monopoly on force.  Force, power, whatever you want to call it, will inevitably consolidate to some degree in any group because it gives an advantage to those doing the consolidating.

Even if you're right that a completely level playing field benefits everyone the most, there is significant incentive to the individual to make the playing field as unlevel in his favor as possible.  In an anarchist society, I'm not sure how you can possibly prevent that from happening.

[myrkul]

What's impossible is the nonexistence of a power vacuum. Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.

The nonexistence of a power vacuum?

Have you read any Agorist theory? If there is a need for security agencies (and no one here is saying there won't be), then there will be security agencies set up. Nobody claims that there will not be an economy of scale where it's easier to have an organized force as opposed to just everybody having their own gun. The problem is the MONOPOLY of force the Government claims. If that monopoly is removed, and competing (in the market sense, not the use of arms) forces are allowed, the problems of Taxation disappear.

[SpaceLord]

What have the Romans ever done for us???

[myrkul]

What have the Romans ever done for us???

Wut?

[freespirit]

This is an interesting issue. Nowadays we think of taxation as some sort of inalienable "right" of governments and that it is OK that they just "invent" new taxes or increase existing ones just to cover their ever-growing spending but the truth it that taxation is relevantly recent "invention" (at least in its modern form) and in some largest economies (like USA and UK if I'm not mistaken, and until around 100 years ago US Constitution explicitly prohibited income taxes) income taxes were introduced to cover war expenses but they just liked the income so much they decided to hold on to it forever And most countries' governments just sort of followed the leaders (so every country has similar taxation systems now, the difference is in details only). (the same applies to immigration restrictions and criminalization of migration btw.)

I think we should view governments as no more as service companies who provide security (police, army etc.), conflict resolution facilities (courts of law etc.) etc. and pay them only for services provided (let them invoice us with detailed invoices) instead of %% of our income. Plus as much as possible of govt. functions should be outsourced to free market participants.
Sooner or later something like this should happen, this insanity (uncontrolled US govt. spending and ever-growing EU bureaucracy for example) can not go on forever. And all those modern "welfare states" are not economically sustainable in long term anyway.
Governments should be restricted to providing security for our lives and our private property. Period.

Time to read my post on reinventing democracy with bitcoin technology: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15967.0 (that thread is for technical/development discussion)

[freespirit]

Sure is, and I can't wait until all of the selfish libertarian idiots like you are taken off to Gitmo and tortured to death for your thought crimes and tax evasion. 

Who would've doubted that looters are violent

[freespirit]

The answer for this type of world is right in front of us. It's called Bitcoin.

Well, sort of. Bitcoin in it's present form handles financial matters only. That's why I created this post: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15967.0

[freespirit]

BTW, part of the taxation problem (of it's existence in it's present form) is universal suffrage.
Only real taxpayers should be allowed to vote on matters that affect taxation. Take Britain for example which used to have all sorts of private armies which conquered half of the world, because only taxpayers were making decisions back then and they would not let the state take their money to try to do the same. And recently it turned into a typical EU-socialist state with huge taxes and debt and an army of looters. Because looters vote for more and more looting! And commie-leaned parties/politicians encourage them to do so. Greece is another screaming example of looters' "democracy" (they have an officially socialist government if I'm not mistaken) with its Euro 300B debt.

Of course representative democracy is too rigid to allow such cherry picking on making decisions. One more reason to develop technology for some sort of more fine-grained democracy/decision-making. Read my post: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15967.0

[myrkul]

dude... one link is enough. And you're not even doing it right.

[freespirit]

dude... one link is enough. And you're not even doing it right.

It is sort of relevant to my every post.
Yes, link was to the section, not the post. Corrected.

[SpaceLord]

What have the Romans ever done for us???

Wut?

The Life of Brian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

[Basiley]

you forgot root of problem.
who, or to be exact, what things invent government and what for ?
like kings/tribes introduction previously.
its just about up-scaling CoC elements of World Domination/managemen by someone/something, staying in shadows. for ages.
for undisclosed, yet, purpose[aside (poorly-made)PR for newcomer/fledglings, usual for their servants in(pretending to be)secretive organizations around globe].

[myrkul]

The Life of Brian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Monty Python makes an interesting point for you. Of course, it's the same one others have made: "But, they actually used that money for stuff for us!"

And, because others have already made this point, We already know the response to it:
1) If those things they used the money for were necessary, forcing people to pay for them is not. A truly necessary service will find funding without force.
2) In addition to the 'necessary' services provided, the funds have also gone to fund unnecessary bureaucracy, and a thug force formed specifically to keep the funds coming.

[freespirit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8
Good argument on "welfare states" etc.:

I object to the idea that people have the right to vote on everything. The traditional American system was a system based on the idea that majority will prevail only in public or political affairs; and that it was limited by inalienable individual rights. Therefore I do not believe that a majority can vote a man's life or property or freedom away from him. Therefore I do not believe that if a majority votes on any issue that this makes the issue right. It doesn't.

[em3rgentOrdr]

dude... one link is enough. And you're not even doing it right.

LOL!  Yeah!  It just so happens I did a post on this the other day: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=alreadyhaveapostonthis

Oh!  And here is another post I did on a related topic: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=anotherpostonarelatedtopic