Make sure you pay your taxes to the government that spies on you!

[Severian]

The title is my smartass way of asking:

What happened to all of the upright posters that were so adamant that we all pay our taxes on Bitcoin earnings?

[1714983734]

1714983734

[1714983734]

1714983734

[1714983734]

1714983734

[Hawker]

The title is my smartass way of asking:

What happened to all of the upright posters that were so adamant that we all pay our taxes on Bitcoin earnings?

We pay them.  What is the point of the question?

[benjamindees]

I give up.  Are they in Gitmo?

[Pzi4nk]

Of course I would pay taxes on any BTC converted to fiat. Until then it's just fake money and I'm playing a game.

[blablahblah]

Maybe you should ask: what's the end-game regarding Bitcoin and taxes?

Some possibilities:

a) Bitcoin remains a niche curiosity. It's the 21st century "tax haven" and supplants the various Cyprus' and Isle of Mans out there, but fails to starve other regimes. After some more banking collapses, various reforms occur around the world as mainstream finance finally realises it has to step up and perform better. New financial tools emerge: banking transactions become faster and safer, some offer features that were previously exclusive to Bitcoin such as irreversibility and maybe even some degree of anonymity. Governments start supporting various mini cash systems (as long as they get the tax of course), a bit like IPOs or redeemable coupons are fully accepted by society. Ironically, most people end up enjoying Bitcoin's benefits but without ever using Bitcoin.

b) Bitcoin keeps growing. Governments are unable to keep up, and eventually they start toppling due to lack of funds. People embrace this new low/zero tax Anarcho-Capitalist / Laissez-faire regime. Various social turnarounds occur: profit-driven education, health, justice, defence, infrastructure, central-planning, and superannuation (among others) ushers in a new era of prosperity. Even governments in various backward parts of the world end up collapsing as well due to Capitalism's unbeatable competitiveness. People have an epiphany and think "how did we end up tolerating all that authoritarianism for so long?! It's so nice that things are voluntary now."

c) Governments fight back. Being seemingly unstoppable, evil beasts that just won't die, they re-spawn as smart money-makers. How long Bitcoin "0.8" lasts seems irrelevant in the scheme of things. It's just a matter of time before the unfunded infrastructure collapses under its own weight. However, these money-makers will gladly produce newer, better coins that offer better performance and various other perks in exchange for tax superior fee structures. It's interesting how some people are so strongly opposed to overt taxes yet they gladly pay "inflation tax" and transaction fees under the Bitcoin model (in exchange for so little extra services, I might add!). Perhaps it really is just a matter of choice -- the ability to select between a wide variety of voluntary governance providers such as: BTC Guild, Bitminter, or 50BTC. Anyway, it later turns out that people want a bunch of government-ish services after all, and they would rather pay BTC Guild (or whoever) to provide an all-inclusive "social package" rather than wasting time with 1001 individual invoices each week. Unlike option (b) where there are no governments, the people grow to love their voluntarily chosen overlords.

[AzureEngineer]

Bitcoin does not equal no taxes, it never has, it never will.

[myrkul]

Bitcoin does not equal no taxes, it never has, it never will.

If taxation is defined as a government taking your money without your consent, it does.

[Elwar]

When my bitcoins gain value I will pay taxes on them.


As it is, I have lost all of my bitcoins that I bought at a low price. The only bitcoins I have left are the ones I bought at a high price. Those are the ones I spend.

 

[Pzi4nk]

When my bitcoins gain value I will pay taxes on them.


As it is, I have lost all of my bitcoins that I bought at a low price. The only bitcoins I have left are the ones I bought at a high price. Those are the ones I spend.

 

I like the way you think.

[Hawker]

Bitcoin does not equal no taxes, it never has, it never will.

If taxation is defined as a government taking your money without your consent, it does.

Bitcoin is no different from cash income.  You can be as shady as you want and pay as little tax as possible but if you live in a big house, have a big car, kids in private education and the like, you can expect to be forced to pay tax.  The taxman just won't accept you word for it that you have no income.

[myrkul]

Bitcoin does not equal no taxes, it never has, it never will.

If taxation is defined as a government taking your money without your consent, it does.

Bitcoin is no different from cash income.  You can be as shady as you want and pay as little tax as possible but if you live in a big house, have a big car, kids in private education and the like, you can expect to be forced to pay tax.  The taxman just won't accept you word for it that you have no income.

Except with cash, they can seize the funds (assuming they can find them - a safe assumption). It's not as easy with Bitcoin.

Sure, they can take the assets - the car, the house, etc, but that rips the velvet glove off that iron fist.

[Hawker]

Bitcoin does not equal no taxes, it never has, it never will.

If taxation is defined as a government taking your money without your consent, it does.

Bitcoin is no different from cash income.  You can be as shady as you want and pay as little tax as possible but if you live in a big house, have a big car, kids in private education and the like, you can expect to be forced to pay tax.  The taxman just won't accept you word for it that you have no income.

Except with cash, they can seize the funds (assuming they can find them - a safe assumption). It's not as easy with Bitcoin.

Sure, they can take the assets - the car, the house, etc, but that rips the velvet glove off that iron fist.

Where do you live?  The taxman always takes a charge on your house to collect overdue taxes.  There is no velvet glove.  They don't say "Please"

[myrkul]

Bitcoin does not equal no taxes, it never has, it never will.

If taxation is defined as a government taking your money without your consent, it does.

Bitcoin is no different from cash income.  You can be as shady as you want and pay as little tax as possible but if you live in a big house, have a big car, kids in private education and the like, you can expect to be forced to pay tax.  The taxman just won't accept you word for it that you have no income.

Except with cash, they can seize the funds (assuming they can find them - a safe assumption). It's not as easy with Bitcoin.

Sure, they can take the assets - the car, the house, etc, but that rips the velvet glove off that iron fist.

Where do you live?  The taxman always takes a charge on your house to collect overdue taxes.  There is no velvet glove.  They don't say "Please"

Typically they just take your money, first. Yank it right out of the bank. If they can.
Bitcoin is a tool, to let those who wish to deny the tax man what he seeks do so a little easier. It's far from a cure-all. But it helps.

[Mike Christ]

Everyone just missed the point

OP is pointing out the fact that we're paying for people to spy on us.  I'm pretty sure most of us don't like that, but I'm certain there's always that one guy who thinks privacy is a bad thing.  So the irony is, we're paying for something we don't want, and not only that, we're paying for something we don't want because we have no choice but to pay for something we don't want.

And remember, kiddos: "I am free."

[Spendulus]

When my bitcoins gain value I will pay taxes on them.


As it is, I have lost all of my bitcoins that I bought at a low price. The only bitcoins I have left are the ones I bought at a high price. Those are the ones I spend.

 

Lucky!

I only have bitcoins I bought at a higher price than what I will sell them for!  The wallet with the ones that I bought really cheap got lost.  Hard drive crash.  Yeah, just bad luck.

Now where do I put down my taxable losses and what kind of refund am I getting back?

[Hawker]

When my bitcoins gain value I will pay taxes on them.


As it is, I have lost all of my bitcoins that I bought at a low price. The only bitcoins I have left are the ones I bought at a high price. Those are the ones I spend.

 

Lucky!

I only have bitcoins I bought at a higher price than what I will sell them for!  The wallet with the ones that I bought really cheap got lost.  Hard drive crash.  Yeah, just bad luck.

Now where do I put down my taxable losses and what kind of refund am I getting back?

My company is writing off all the investment in mining kit using depreciation.  Talk to an accountant - you may be pleasantly surprised what is available to you.

[cryptoanarchist]

If you pay money to a government that mass murders like the US or UK - you're no better than the murderers.

If you're ok with paying for genocide because you're worried that some government thugs may knock on your door, then you're a weak coward and deserve to be a slave.

[Hawker]

If you pay money to a government that mass murders like the US or UK - you're no better than the murderers.

If you're ok with paying for genocide because you're worried that some government thugs may knock on your door, then you're a weak coward and deserve to be a slave.

And if you sit around trolling on the Internet when confronted by mass murder, what does that make you?

[myrkul]

If you pay money to a government that mass murders like the US or UK - you're no better than the murderers.

If you're ok with paying for genocide because you're worried that some government thugs may knock on your door, then you're a weak coward and deserve to be a slave.

And if you sit around trolling on the Internet when confronted by mass murder, what does that make you?

A recruiter?

[cryptoanarchist]

If you pay money to a government that mass murders like the US or UK - you're no better than the murderers.

If you're ok with paying for genocide because you're worried that some government thugs may knock on your door, then you're a weak coward and deserve to be a slave.

And if you sit around trolling on the Internet when confronted by mass murder, what does that make you?

Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.

I don't pay a dime to your queen's empire - including USA corp. Ad hominem me with troll accusations all you want - the feeling is mutual. You and your country are my eternal enemy.

[Hawker]

If you pay money to a government that mass murders like the US or UK - you're no better than the murderers.

If you're ok with paying for genocide because you're worried that some government thugs may knock on your door, then you're a weak coward and deserve to be a slave.

And if you sit around trolling on the Internet when confronted by mass murder, what does that make you?

Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.

I don't pay a dime to your queen's empire - including USA corp. Ad hominem me with troll accusations all you want - the feeling is mutual. You and your country are my eternal enemy.

Ireland doesn't have a queen.  And you are obviously much happier trolling and calling other people names on the Internet than you are being called out on it.  Grow up!

[cryptoanarchist]

If you pay money to a government that mass murders like the US or UK - you're no better than the murderers.

If you're ok with paying for genocide because you're worried that some government thugs may knock on your door, then you're a weak coward and deserve to be a slave.

And if you sit around trolling on the Internet when confronted by mass murder, what does that make you?

Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.

I don't pay a dime to your queen's empire - including USA corp. Ad hominem me with troll accusations all you want - the feeling is mutual. You and your country are my eternal enemy.

Ireland doesn't have a queen.  And you are obviously much happier trolling and calling other people names on the Internet than you are being called out on it.  Grow up!

Oh, you're still one of the Queen's little bitches. Most Irish people, and the country as a whole, are very happy being the queen's mindless goons.

As for the "grow up" comment - ditto back at ya, you piece of filth.

[Hawker]

If you pay money to a government that mass murders like the US or UK - you're no better than the murderers.

If you're ok with paying for genocide because you're worried that some government thugs may knock on your door, then you're a weak coward and deserve to be a slave.

And if you sit around trolling on the Internet when confronted by mass murder, what does that make you?

Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.

I don't pay a dime to your queen's empire - including USA corp. Ad hominem me with troll accusations all you want - the feeling is mutual. You and your country are my eternal enemy.

Ireland doesn't have a queen.  And you are obviously much happier trolling and calling other people names on the Internet than you are being called out on it.  Grow up!

Oh, you're still one of the Queen's little bitches. As for the "grow up" comment - ditto back at ya, you piece of filth.

lol - I guess being called out really did hurt you. 

[cryptoanarchist]

lol - I guess being called out really did hurt you. 

You haven't called me out.

[Hawker]

lol - I guess being called out really did hurt you.  

You haven't called me out.

Oh really?

If you pay money to a government that mass murders like the US or UK - you're no better than the murderers.

If you're ok with paying for genocide because you're worried that some government thugs may knock on your door, then you're a weak coward and deserve to be a slave.

And if you sit around trolling on the Internet when confronted by mass murder, what does that make you?

I called you out on trolling when you pretend to be morally outraged.  And now you deny it - pathetic.  As I said earlier, grow up.  

[cryptoanarchist]

I called you out on trolling when you pretend to be morally outraged.  And now you deny it - pathetic.  As I said earlier, grow up.  

Being called a subjective term like "troll" is hardly a call out.

Especially since there is no pretending here. I don't pay taxes because I'm sickened by people like yourself who have no problem funding the bombing of innocent people. The fact that you think that that has to be faked, just goes to show what a colossal piece of shit you really are.

You're on here non-stop - if anyone is a troll - IT'S YOU!

[Hawker]

I called you out on trolling when you pretend to be morally outraged.  And now you deny it - pathetic.  As I said earlier, grow up.  

Being called a subjective term like "troll" is hardly a call out.

Especially since there is no pretending here. I don't pay taxes because I'm sickened by people like yourself who have no problem funding the bombing of innocent people. The fact that you think that that has to be faked, just goes to show what a colossal piece of shit you really are.

So you believe that your government is devoted to mass murder and your response is to hide online and call people names?  What kind of person does that make you?

[myrkul]

I don't pay taxes because I'm sickened by people like yourself who have no problem funding the bombing of innocent people. The fact that you think that that has to be faked, just goes to show what a colossal piece of shit you really are.

You see, Hawker, we practice what we preach. So do you, but what you preach is support for mass murderers.

[Hawker]

I don't pay taxes because I'm sickened by people like yourself who have no problem funding the bombing of innocent people. The fact that you think that that has to be faked, just goes to show what a colossal piece of shit you really are.

You see, Hawker, we practice what we preach. So do you, but what you preach is support for mass murderers.

Ah the difference between you and cryptoanarchist is simple.  You don't believe in use of violence yet its his preferred way of dealing with things.

...snip...

Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.

...snip...

I'd be sad to see you lower yourself to that level of brutishness.

[myrkul]

I don't pay taxes because I'm sickened by people like yourself who have no problem funding the bombing of innocent people. The fact that you think that that has to be faked, just goes to show what a colossal piece of shit you really are.

You see, Hawker, we practice what we preach. So do you, but what you preach is support for mass murderers.

Ah the difference between you and cryptoanarchist is simple.  You don't believe in use of violence yet its his preferred way of dealing with things.

...snip...

Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.

...snip...

I'd be sad to see you lower yourself to that level of brutishness.

Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

[cryptoanarchist]

I don't pay taxes because I'm sickened by people like yourself who have no problem funding the bombing of innocent people. The fact that you think that that has to be faked, just goes to show what a colossal piece of shit you really are.

You see, Hawker, we practice what we preach. So do you, but what you preach is support for mass murderers.

Ah the difference between you and cryptoanarchist is simple.  You don't believe in use of violence yet its his preferred way of dealing with things.

...snip...

Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.

...snip...

I'd be sad to see you lower yourself to that level of brutishness.

Are you equating the death of a slimeball like you to the mass murder of a whole country of people???

[Hawker]

...snip...
Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

So, for you killing someone is OK if they disagree with you? 

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...
Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

So, for you killing someone is OK if they disagree with you?  

Nope...that's your belief - that is, as long as someone else is doing the dirty work for you.

Killing a killer is ok with me - and that's what you are by proxy when you pay taxes to a government that murders.


I'm done with you for now - you can go back to trolling on here unabated. Unlike you, I have real life things to attend to.

[myrkul]

...snip...
Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

So, for you killing someone is OK if they disagree with you? 

This is far beyond a simple disagreement. You advocate - and would support financially - the use of lethal force against me. That, I'm afraid, makes us enemies.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

So, for you killing someone is OK if they disagree with you? 

This is far beyond a simple disagreement. You advocate - and would support financially - the use of lethal force against me. That, I'm afraid, makes us enemies.

That's a yes then. You are saying that if someone disagrees with you, you have the right to kill them.

OK.  Saved for future use.

[myrkul]

...snip...
Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

So, for you killing someone is OK if they disagree with you? 

This is far beyond a simple disagreement. You advocate - and would support financially - the use of lethal force against me. That, I'm afraid, makes us enemies.

That's a yes then. You are saying that if someone disagrees with you, you have the right to kill them.

OK.  Saved for future use.

That's a rather broad brush you're painting with, Hawkster. Let me reiterate. This is not a mere disagreement. You are supporting, morally and financially, the use of lethal force against me.

I am here attempting to convince you to abandon this position that puts you at violent odds with peaceful people.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

So, for you killing someone is OK if they disagree with you?  

This is far beyond a simple disagreement. You advocate - and would support financially - the use of lethal force against me. That, I'm afraid, makes us enemies.

That's a yes then. You are saying that if someone disagrees with you, you have the right to kill them.

OK.  Saved for future use.

That's a rather broad brush you're painting with, Hawkster. Let me reiterate. This is not a mere disagreement. You are supporting, morally and financially, the use of lethal force against me.

I am here attempting to convince you to abandon this position that puts you at violent odds with peaceful people.

So your view is that I get "convinced" by your argument or else I get killed.  Once you threaten to kill someone, you lose the right to "convince."  

Your position is that since I don't agree with you, since I am happy to pay taxes and vote in elections, that gives you the right to kill me.  Since I am not alone in these things, there are a lot of people you want to have the freedom to kill.  That puts your complaints that you don't want the police and courts to exist in very clear perspective doesn't it?  

[myrkul]

You are supporting, morally and financially, the use of lethal force against me.

I am here attempting to convince you to abandon this position that puts you at violent odds with peaceful people.

So your view is that I get "convinced" by your argument or else I get killed.  Once you threaten to kill someone, you lose the right to "convince."  

You don't get it, do you? You're the one threatening me!

Your position is that since I don't agree with you, since I am happy to pay taxes and vote in elections, that gives you the right to kill me.  Since I am not alone in these things, there are a lot of people you want to have the freedom to kill.  That puts your complaints that you don't want the police and courts to exist in very clear perspective doesn't it?  

Hah! Nice try. I never stated a desire for police and courts to not exist. Just their monopoly.

[Hawker]

You are supporting, morally and financially, the use of lethal force against me.

I am here attempting to convince you to abandon this position that puts you at violent odds with peaceful people.

So your view is that I get "convinced" by your argument or else I get killed.  Once you threaten to kill someone, you lose the right to "convince."  

You don't get it, do you? You're the one threatening me!

...snip...

When crytoanarchist has said he wants to kill me, you posted that you are in agreement.  You follow up by saying that you stand by the statement that you would kill me for disagreeing with you.  And that you would attempt to "convince" me to agree with you.

Pasting your threat here for the record:

I don't pay taxes because I'm sickened by people like yourself who have no problem funding the bombing of innocent people. The fact that you think that that has to be faked, just goes to show what a colossal piece of shit you really are.

You see, Hawker, we practice what we preach. So do you, but what you preach is support for mass murderers.

Ah the difference between you and cryptoanarchist is simple.  You don't believe in use of violence yet its his preferred way of dealing with things.

...snip...

Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.

...snip...

I'd be sad to see you lower yourself to that level of brutishness.

Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

I don't believe that you are really a homicidal thug.  Its very sad that you think its OK to act like one. 

[myrkul]

You are supporting, morally and financially, the use of lethal force against me.

I am here attempting to convince you to abandon this position that puts you at violent odds with peaceful people.

So your view is that I get "convinced" by your argument or else I get killed.  Once you threaten to kill someone, you lose the right to "convince." 

You don't get it, do you? You're the one threatening me!

...snip...

When crytoanarchist has said he wants to kill me, you posted that you are in agreement.  You follow up by saying that you stand by the statement that you would kill me for disagreeing with you.  And that you would attempt to "convince" me to agree with you.

I don't believe that you are really a homicidal thug.  Its very sad that you think its OK to act like one.

I'm not.  I'm not going to kill you simply for disagreeing with me. You, on the other hand, have no problem with paying the people who would kill me for disagreeing with you.

[Hawker]

...snip...
I'm not.  I'm not going to kill you for disagreeing with me. You, on the other hand, have no problem with paying the people who would kill me for disagreeing with you.

Well you pay your taxes as well and your government could have me arrested - I don't think that entitles me to kill you.

I'm glad you've come back to your senses.  It would have been a strange turn if I had to lecture you on the NAP and how it applies to free speech.

[myrkul]

...snip...
I'm not.  I'm not going to kill you simply for disagreeing with me. You, on the other hand, have no problem with paying the people who would kill me for disagreeing with you.

Well you pay your taxes as well - I don't think that entitles me to kill you.

Any taxes I pay, I pay under duress. Giving the mugger your wallet doesn't mean you support being mugged. You, on the other hand, gladly hand over the wallet to the mugger, and tell everyone how resisting the mugger is wrong.

And if I should refuse to hand over the wallet, you would applaud when he shot me down.

I'm glad you've come back to your senses.  It would have been a strange turn if I had to lecture you on the NAP and how it applies to free speech.

Tsk... You seem to think I have changed my stance. You're still threatening me with lethal force.

[Hawker]

...snip...
I'm not.  I'm not going to kill you simply for disagreeing with me. You, on the other hand, have no problem with paying the people who would kill me for disagreeing with you.

Well you pay your taxes as well - I don't think that entitles me to kill you.

Any taxes I pay, I pay under duress. Giving the mugger your wallet doesn't mean you support being mugged. You, on the other hand, gladly hand over the wallet to the mugger, and tell everyone how resisting the mugger is wrong.

And if I should refuse to hand over the wallet, you would applaud when he shot me down.

I'm glad you've come back to your senses.  It would have been a strange turn if I had to lecture you on the NAP and how it applies to free speech.

Tsk... You seem to think I have changed my stance. You're still threatening me with lethal force.

You said you would kill me if I disagreed with you.  Now you say you would not.  That's a change of stance.  I admire you for doing it - its hard to reverse gear on a public forum. 

[myrkul]

...snip...
I'm not.  I'm not going to kill you simply for disagreeing with me. You, on the other hand, have no problem with paying the people who would kill me for disagreeing with you.

Well you pay your taxes as well - I don't think that entitles me to kill you.

Any taxes I pay, I pay under duress. Giving the mugger your wallet doesn't mean you support being mugged. You, on the other hand, gladly hand over the wallet to the mugger, and tell everyone how resisting the mugger is wrong.

And if I should refuse to hand over the wallet, you would applaud when he shot me down.

I'm glad you've come back to your senses.  It would have been a strange turn if I had to lecture you on the NAP and how it applies to free speech.

Tsk... You seem to think I have changed my stance. You're still threatening me with lethal force.

You said you would kill me if I disagreed with you.

No, that's how you misinterpreted my statement.

[Hawker]

...snip...
I'm not.  I'm not going to kill you simply for disagreeing with me. You, on the other hand, have no problem with paying the people who would kill me for disagreeing with you.

Well you pay your taxes as well - I don't think that entitles me to kill you.

Any taxes I pay, I pay under duress. Giving the mugger your wallet doesn't mean you support being mugged. You, on the other hand, gladly hand over the wallet to the mugger, and tell everyone how resisting the mugger is wrong.

And if I should refuse to hand over the wallet, you would applaud when he shot me down.

I'm glad you've come back to your senses.  It would have been a strange turn if I had to lecture you on the NAP and how it applies to free speech.

Tsk... You seem to think I have changed my stance. You're still threatening me with lethal force.

You said you would kill me if I disagreed with you.

No, that's how you misinterpreted my statement.

Really?

...snip...

You see, Hawker, we practice what we preach. So do you, but what you preach is support for mass murderers.

...snip...

...snip...
Trust me, Hawker, given the chance I'd choke you to death with my bare hands.
...snip...

...snip...

Then I would suggest you not advocate support for government mass murder whilst within my reach.

That post from cryptoanarchist is a direct threat.  Your posts in support of it are supporting that threat and amplifying it saying you would also kill me. 

As I said, I am glad you backed away from that nonsense.  You can never further an argument with a threat.

[myrkul]

That post from cryptoanarchist is a direct threat.  Your posts in support of it are supporting that threat and amplifying it saying you would also kill me. 

Vim Vi Repellere Licet. I stated that if you made a statement of threat to me, I would respond violently. I advise against threatening people.

[Hawker]

myrkul - I'm bored of the threat theme now you have taken a more civilized stance.  Have the last word and lets move on.

[myrkul]

myrkul - I'm bored of the threat theme now you have taken a more civilized stance.  Have the last word and lets move on.

Then you have retracted your support of taxation and government mass murder?

You've decided to stop threatening peaceful people? I'm so happy!

[Lethn]

This is far beyond a simple disagreement. You advocate - and would support financially - the use of lethal force against me. That, I'm afraid, makes us enemies.

Hawker, you have proven to me without doubt that the people of the ideology you follow and you yourself are overreacting paranoid schizophrenics who think everyone is out to get them. You can be the enemy of someone without killing them, it happens all the time in life. I do have to agree with Myrkul on some points but not all, while governments have finally learned that they can't get away with killing people who don't want to pay tax so easily anymore it seems that imprisoning them is perfectly acceptable and there was even a thread recently about the way the Finnish police using methods which basically amount to torture in most countries so it just goes to show you that not all governments are above using violence to get there way still.

Bitcoin has finally given us a way to peacefully protest the way our money is being spent by our governments, if you don't like that happening, then tough, it's not like you can do anything about it, from now on taxation isn't going to exist, you're going to have to ask for my money rather than just take it and use it for your own ends, you can stay with your rapidly devaluing paper currency.

[Hawker]

This is far beyond a simple disagreement. You advocate - and would support financially - the use of lethal force against me. That, I'm afraid, makes us enemies.

Hawker, you have proven to me without doubt that the people of the ideology you follow and you yourself are overreacting paranoid schizophrenics who think everyone is out to get them. You can be the enemy of someone without killing them, it happens all the time in life. I do have to agree with Myrkul on some points but not all, while governments have finally learned that they can't get away with killing people who don't want to pay tax so easily anymore it seems that imprisoning them is perfectly acceptable and there was even a thread recently about the way the Finnish police using methods which basically amount to torture in most countries so it just goes to show you that not all governments are above using violence to get there way still.

Bitcoin has finally given us a way to peacefully protest the way our money is being spent by our governments, if you don't like that happening, then tough, it's not like you can do anything about it, from now on taxation isn't going to exist, you're going to have to ask for my money rather than just take it and use it for your own ends, you can stay with your rapidly devaluing paper currency.

Call me paranoid but if someone says that they want to strangle me with their bare hands, then I consider that a threat.

That doesn't really matter though does it.  Its the Internet and some kids act all tough calling people names and threatening to kill their mothers and rape their dogs.

On a more serious point, Bitcoin does not mean the end of taxation.  A person who earns money with Bitcoin is no different from a person who earns money with cash. 

[myrkul]

On a more serious point, Bitcoin does not mean the end of taxation.  A person who earns money with Bitcoin is no different from a person who earns money with cash. 

Except they can physically take your cash.

[Hawker]

On a more serious point, Bitcoin does not mean the end of taxation.  A person who earns money with Bitcoin is no different from a person who earns money with cash. 

Except they can physically take your cash.

We've had this conversation before.  Yes you can live in a tent and cycle to the shops.  But if things are going well in your life, you will have a salary, a house, a car, a pension, stock investments and all sorts of other things that the taxman can take if you are convicted of tax evasion. So those of us who earn some money in Bitcoin are no more invulnerable than those of us who earn money in cash.

[myrkul]

On a more serious point, Bitcoin does not mean the end of taxation.  A person who earns money with Bitcoin is no different from a person who earns money with cash. 

Except they can physically take your cash.

We've had this conversation before.  Yes you can live in a tent and cycle to the shops.  But if things are going well in your life, you will have a salary

Paid in bitcoins, on the internet.

, a house, a car,

So they steal my house and car. Now they have a house and a car, not taxes.

a pension, stock investments

On Cryptostocks.

and all sorts of other things that the taxman can take if you are convicted of tax evasion.

They can even lock me up, but I'll still have my money.

So those of us who earn some money in Bitcoin are no more invulnerable than those of us who earn money in cash.

As I've shown, actually, yes we are. It's not 100%, but it's a big step in the right direction.

[Hawker]

On a more serious point, Bitcoin does not mean the end of taxation.  A person who earns money with Bitcoin is no different from a person who earns money with cash.  

Except they can physically take your cash.

We've had this conversation before.  Yes you can live in a tent and cycle to the shops.  But if things are going well in your life, you will have a salary

Paid in bitcoins, on the internet.

, a house, a car,

So they steal my house and car. Now they have a house and a car, not taxes.

a pension, stock investments

On Cryptostocks.

and all sorts of other things that the taxman can take if you are convicted of tax evasion.

They can even lock me up, but I'll still have my money.

So those of us who earn some money in Bitcoin are no more invulnerable than those of us who earn money in cash.

As I've shown, actually, yes we are. It's not 100%, but it's a big step in the right direction.

Saying the government has taken your house and car but that you have avoided paying tax is silly.  Assuming your cash is in a secure location, every example you give is true for cash as well.

[Severian]

So those of us who earn some money in Bitcoin are no more invulnerable than those of us who earn money in cash.

Only if you tell the government about your Bitcoins. What kind of fool would do that?

[myrkul]

Saying the government has taken your house and car but that you have avoided paying tax is silly.  Assuming your cash is in a secure location, every example you give is true for cash as well.

Even the Cryptostocks?

Somehow, I don't think the finance committee is going to appreciate a budget denominated in cars and houses.

But let's set that aside for a moment. Say I'm looking to transition to warmer, friendlier climes. I could sell the house and the car, and try taking all my cash with in a few dozen suitcases, but they generally don't like that. OR, I could turn it all into Bitcoins, and waltz across the border - any border - with it securely stashed in my brain. Try doing that with Krugerrands.

[Hawker]

Saying the government has taken your house and car but that you have avoided paying tax is silly.  Assuming your cash is in a secure location, every example you give is true for cash as well.

Even the Cryptostocks?

Somehow, I don't think the finance committee is going to appreciate a budget denominated in cars and houses.

But let's set that aside for a moment. Say I'm looking to transition to warmer, friendlier climes. I could sell the house and the car, and try taking all my cash with in a few dozen suitcases, but they generally don't like that. OR, I could turn it all into Bitcoins, and waltz across the border - any border - with it securely stashed in my brain. Try doing that with Krugerrands.

What's the point?  Leaving the country to avoid paying tax is possibly the saddest thing imaginable.  Don't you have a life? Family? Are you really so alone that you'd abandon it all in order to live on a beach?

That's why countries like the US and UK with high tax have so many rich people.  Its not that the rich can't move - its that they have a good life here and don't see the attraction of leaving it behind.  Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.

[myrkul]

Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.

Liable... but not accessible.

[hashman]

Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.

Liable... but not accessible.

A bitcoin world or more generally a public money supply currency world clearly means MORE taxes than before.  After all, if you cut off the source of income which is printing money as debt, governments will be forced to take more taxes to maintain roads, etc. 

Bitcoin income is MORE accessible to taxation, because the block chain doesn't lie (though of course under the table transactions will always be possible). 

We're already paying miners fees, capital gains tax, and adjusting for sales tax.  Get used to it, it sure beats an unknown tax applied without your knowledge.   

[Lethn]

A bitcoin world or more generally a public money supply currency world clearly means MORE taxes than before.  After all, if you cut off the source of income which is printing money as debt, governments will be forced to take more taxes to maintain roads, etc.

The reason taxes would go up is because they would be forced to honestly show just how much people are actually going to have to spend on the things the government is providing, printing money is not a source of income, it's delaying the payment of the debt that has been taken on with more debt, worse still, it dumps the problem on the next generation, your children, which is something I can never support.

[myrkul]

Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.

Liable... but not accessible.

A bitcoin world or more generally a public money supply currency world clearly means MORE taxes than before.  After all, if you cut off the source of income which is printing money as debt, governments will be forced to take more taxes to maintain roads, etc. 

Bitcoin income is MORE accessible to taxation, because the block chain doesn't lie (though of course under the table transactions will always be possible).

Maybe more liable, but as I said, not accessible.

Unless you know of a way you can reach in to my wallet and take my coins?

[Hawker]

Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.

Liable... but not accessible.

A bitcoin world or more generally a public money supply currency world clearly means MORE taxes than before.  After all, if you cut off the source of income which is printing money as debt, governments will be forced to take more taxes to maintain roads, etc. 

Bitcoin income is MORE accessible to taxation, because the block chain doesn't lie (though of course under the table transactions will always be possible).

Maybe more liable, but as I said, not accessible.

Unless you know of a way you can reach in to my wallet and take my coins?

Yes - put you in jail until you pay your debts.  Exactly like happens with all other forms of income.

I'm don't know why you cling to the bizarre notion that income from Bitcoin is some way special in that the taxman can't take it.  If he knows about it, he can tax it.  Bitcoin is just another currency from that point of view.

[hashman]

Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.

Liable... but not accessible.

A bitcoin world or more generally a public money supply currency world clearly means MORE taxes than before.  After all, if you cut off the source of income which is printing money as debt, governments will be forced to take more taxes to maintain roads, etc. 

Bitcoin income is MORE accessible to taxation, because the block chain doesn't lie (though of course under the table transactions will always be possible).

Maybe more liable, but as I said, not accessible.

Unless you know of a way you can reach in to my wallet and take my coins?

The tax man never reaches in your wallet.  Instead, we reach into our wallets and give the coins to them.
Hopefully, we will do so willingly and with knowledge that the money is going to a cause we support.

Unfortunately there will also be those who use threat of violence, as was common in the dark ages, er I mean now... 

 

[myrkul]

Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.

Liable... but not accessible.

A bitcoin world or more generally a public money supply currency world clearly means MORE taxes than before.  After all, if you cut off the source of income which is printing money as debt, governments will be forced to take more taxes to maintain roads, etc. 

Bitcoin income is MORE accessible to taxation, because the block chain doesn't lie (though of course under the table transactions will always be possible).

Maybe more liable, but as I said, not accessible.

Unless you know of a way you can reach in to my wallet and take my coins?

Yes - put you in jail until you pay your debts.  Exactly like happens with all other forms of income.

I'm don't know why you cling to the bizarre notion that income from Bitcoin is some way special in that the taxman can't take it.  If he knows about it, he can tax it.  Bitcoin is just another currency from that point of view.

I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.

[Hawker]

...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.

Judge locks you up.  Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000.  You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both.

Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field.

Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation? 

[myrkul]

...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.

Judge locks you up.  Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000.  You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both.

Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field.

Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation? 

Bitcoin is in a brainwallet, and cash is buried in a field. If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it. As long as I have selected an unguessable passphrase, ain't nobody taking my bitcoins without my say-so.

[wdmw]

Your cash is buried in a field. 

You bury your cash in a field?  The IRS takes mine from my paycheck before I ever get it.

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.

Judge locks you up.  Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000.  You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both.

Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field.

Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation? 

Funny thing is, none of that has happened to me in the 10 years since I've filed a tax return.

Why? Because the IRS has no evidence that I've had any taxable income - even by their definition. I buy cars privately with cash and I rent. When I did buy houses, I used a C-corp and wrote off all my capital gains.

But you are free to continue being a slave, Hawker. Meanwhile, I'll continue being better off than you because I keep all my money.

[Hawker]

...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.

Judge locks you up.  Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000.  You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both.

Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field.

Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation? 

Bitcoin is in a brainwallet, and cash is buried in a field. If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it. As long as I have selected an unguessable passphrase, ain't nobody taking my bitcoins without my say-so.

lol your "say-so" while you rot in jail makes it voluntary?

In both cases, you remain in jail until the authorities have what they want.  The Bitcoin is no more secure than the cash. 

[Hawker]

Your cash is buried in a field. 

You bury your cash in a field?  The IRS takes mine from my paycheck before I ever get it.

My exact point.  myrkul is peddling the notion that if you are paid in Bitcoin, you are not subject to tax on your income.  But if you are an employee, that's nonsense.

[myrkul]

...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.

Judge locks you up.  Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000.  You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both.

Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field.

Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation? 

Bitcoin is in a brainwallet, and cash is buried in a field. If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it. As long as I have selected an unguessable passphrase, ain't nobody taking my bitcoins without my say-so.

lol your "say-so" while you rot in jail makes it voluntary?

In both cases, you remain in jail until the authorities have what they want.  The Bitcoin is no more secure than the cash.

And in both cases, I am costing them money, instead of earning them money. The benefit of bitcoin is that they can't get it unless I decide to give it to them.
Three hots and a cot, on the state dime, while my money's safe in my head.
Repeat after me: I am not your piggybank.

[Hawker]

...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.

Judge locks you up.  Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000.  You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both.

Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field.

Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation?  

Bitcoin is in a brainwallet, and cash is buried in a field. If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it. As long as I have selected an unguessable passphrase, ain't nobody taking my bitcoins without my say-so.

lol your "say-so" while you rot in jail makes it voluntary?

In both cases, you remain in jail until the authorities have what they want.  The Bitcoin is no more secure than the cash.

And in both cases, I am costing them money, instead of earning them money. The benefit of bitcoin is that they can't get it unless I decide to give it to them.
Three hots and a cot, on the state dime, while my money's safe in my head.
Repeat after me: I am not your piggybank.

So you are agreed that the cash and the Bitcoin are equally safe.  Fine.

[myrkul]

...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.

Judge locks you up.  Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000.  You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both.

Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field.

Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation?  

Bitcoin is in a brainwallet, and cash is buried in a field. If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it. As long as I have selected an unguessable passphrase, ain't nobody taking my bitcoins without my say-so.

lol your "say-so" while you rot in jail makes it voluntary?

In both cases, you remain in jail until the authorities have what they want.  The Bitcoin is no more secure than the cash.

And in both cases, I am costing them money, instead of earning them money. The benefit of bitcoin is that they can't get it unless I decide to give it to them.
Three hots and a cot, on the state dime, while my money's safe in my head.
Repeat after me: I am not your piggybank.

So you are agreed that the cash and the Bitcoin are equally safe.  Fine.

Uhhh... nooo....

If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it.

Can't do that with bitcoins. I'll even tell them where the money is: 1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Come and get it. 

[myrkul]

Your cash is buried in a field. 

You bury your cash in a field?  The IRS takes mine from my paycheck before I ever get it.

My exact point.  myrkul is peddling the notion that if you are paid in Bitcoin, you are not subject to tax on your income.  But if you are an employee, that's nonsense.

Depends on who you work for. If you work for someone willing to pay you in bitcoin, it's likely that you also work for someone willing to not report your earnings.

Another benefit of bitcoins. Employer buys bitcoins, isn't legally required to pay taxes on them until he turns them back into cash.

[AzureEngineer]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.   

[cryptoanarchist]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.  

to be fair, I'm the one who wants to choke Hawker. If you pay taxes - you're a violent person. You're implying that you're on the "pay your taxes" side of the argument - so you're admitting that you are not only violent - and thus "irrational" by your argument- but you're also the initiator of the violence. Me wanting to choke someone for initiating the violence is just self defense.

[Hawker]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.   

I know - and they keep saying that we don't need the police :O

[Hawker]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.  

to be fair, I'm the one who wants to choke Hawker. If you pay taxes - you're a violent person. You're implying that you're on the "pay your taxes" side of the argument - so you're admitting that you are not only violent - and thus "irrational" by your argument- but you're also the initiator of the violence. Me wanting to choke someone for initiating the violence is just self defense.

Actually the reason you threatened to kill me is that I called you out for your trolling.  Stop trying to rationalise your being hypersensitive. 

[myrkul]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.   

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

[Hawker]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.   

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Again back to threatening people who disagree with you?

[myrkul]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.   

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Again back to threatening people who disagree with you?

They're free to disagree. Just not to morally and financially support robbers and murderers.

[cryptoanarchist]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.  

to be fair, I'm the one who wants to choke Hawker. If you pay taxes - you're a violent person. You're implying that you're on the "pay your taxes" side of the argument - so you're admitting that you are not only violent - and thus "irrational" by your argument- but you're also the initiator of the violence. Me wanting to choke someone for initiating the violence is just self defense.

Actually the reason you threatened to kill me is that I called you out for your trolling.  Stop trying to rationalise your being hypersensitive. 

Now you're a liar too. go back and read the thread.

[AzureEngineer]

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Violence begetting violence. You're doing a good job at making the wheel go round and round, I guess.

[Hawker]

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.   

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Again back to threatening people who disagree with you?

They're free to disagree. Just not to morally and financially support robbers and murderers.

Well that is clear enough.  People who disagree with you won't be killed if they behave as you dictate.

[myrkul]

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Violence begetting violence. You're doing a good job at making the wheel go round and round, I guess.

Defense does not beget more violence. It ends it.

People who disagree with you won't be killed if they behave as you dictate.

If by that, you mean don't threaten me and mine, yes, that's exactly right.

[AzureEngineer]

Defense does not beget more violence. It ends it.

Its almost as if I could hear a thousand history majors laugh hysterically.

If by that, you mean don't threaten me and mine, yes, that's exactly right.

Violence is okay as long as it is you doing it, got it.

[Hawker]

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Violence begetting violence. You're doing a good job at making the wheel go round and round, I guess.

Defense does not beget more violence. It ends it.

People who disagree with you won't be killed if they behave as you dictate.

If by that, you mean don't threaten me and mine, yes, that's exactly right.

Quite a vicious little chap aren't you?  Freedom means obeying your rules and those that disagree are legitimate targets.  It does explain why you regard it as a bad idea for the state to have a monopoly on violence.  You want a piece of the action yourself.

[cryptoanarchist]

Defense does not beget more violence. It ends it.

Its almost as if I could hear a thousand history majors laugh hysterically.

If by that, you mean don't threaten me and mine, yes, that's exactly right.

Violence is okay as long as it is you doing it, got it.

Are you capable of differentiating between the initiation of force, and self defense?

Are you saying that if someone breaks into my house and starts beating my kid, that I'm just as wrong for using violence against the intruder??

you're not making any sense.

[Hawker]

Defense does not beget more violence. It ends it.

Its almost as if I could hear a thousand history majors laugh hysterically.

If by that, you mean don't threaten me and mine, yes, that's exactly right.

Violence is okay as long as it is you doing it, got it.

Are you capable of differentiating between the initiation of force, and self defense?

Are you saying that if someone breaks into my house and starts beating my kid, that I'm just as wrong for using violence against the intruder??

you're not making any sense.

Um, you are the one making death threats.  No-one has entered your house or beaten your kid.  You are just the type of person who likes to use the treat of violence when you can't win a rational argument.

[AzureEngineer]

Are you capable of differentiating between the initiation of force, and self defense?

Both are forms of violence.

Are you saying that if someone breaks into my house and starts beating my kid, that I'm just as wrong for using violence against the intruder??

Depends on the situation. Why would someone break into your house and beat your kid?

you're not making any sense.

Considering you're the one threatening to choke people over an online forum, I don't believe you have the privilege to say things such as this.

[myrkul]

Quite a vicious little chap aren't you?  Freedom means obeying your rules and those that disagree are legitimate targets. 

And here are my only rules:
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET

There's a reason the libertarian mascot is a porcupine.

[myrkul]

Are you capable of differentiating between the initiation of force, and self defense?

Both are forms of violence.

So, no.

Do you support taxation, by the way? You never said.

[Hawker]

Quite a vicious little chap aren't you?  Freedom means obeying your rules and those that disagree are legitimate targets.  

And here are my only rules:
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET

There's a reason the libertarian mascot is a porcupine.

Oh really?  Who is this myrkul making threats then?

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.  

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Thats a threat to people who disagree with you.  Don't try running away from your thuggish tendencies.

[myrkul]

Quite a vicious little chap aren't you?  Freedom means obeying your rules and those that disagree are legitimate targets. 

And here are my only rules:
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET

There's a reason the libertarian mascot is a porcupine.

Oh really?  Who is this myrkul making threats then?

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.   

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Thats a threat.  Don't try running away from your thuggish tendencies.

That's no more a threat than the quills on a porcupine are. You pay people to rob, kidnap, or kill me, I am entitled to fight back.

[AzureEngineer]

So, no.

Do you support taxation, by the way? You never said.

If you live in a cabin built with your own two hands and get all of your food from a garden in your backyard and you do it all on non-government paid property, then no, I don't think you should pay taxes.

[myrkul]

Do you support taxation, by the way? You never said.

If you live in a cabin built with your own two hands and get all of your food from a garden in your backyard and you do it all on non-government paid property, then no, I don't think you should pay taxes.

But if I trade, in any way, with anyone else, I should pay a third party under penalty of kidnapping or death?

[wdmw]

Quite a vicious little chap aren't you?  Freedom means obeying your rules and those that disagree are legitimate targets. 

And here are my only rules:
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET

There's a reason the libertarian mascot is a porcupine.

Oh really?  Who is this myrkul making threats then?

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.   

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Thats a threat.  Don't try running away from your thuggish tendencies.

That's no more a threat than the quills on a porcupine are. You pay people to rob, kidnap, or kill me, I am entitled to fight back.

It's tedious reading two sides of an argument talking past each other.

You cannot reduce the statement that someone will defend themselves from violence into that same person being violent towards anyone who disagrees with them.  If you were to look at a suit, and one says it's blue and the other says it's grey, that's a disagreement.  Do we expect any violence to arise?

Alternately, I seriously doubt that myrkul has ever killed someone for paying their taxes. (correct me if I'm wrong)  It's great to stand on your principle, and the non-aggression principle supports your defense against aggression.  Agorists, anarchists, libertarians, voluntarists, etc. expand upon it and say that which is wrong for an individual is wrong for a collective, so taxation, conscription, war, etc. are illegitimate.  Though a statist would be your enemy, we aren't to the point of punching every statist in the nose because they are a statist.

[AzureEngineer]

But if I trade, in any way, with anyone else, I should pay a third party under penalty of kidnapping or death?

Depends on who you trade with and whether or not that person also lives in a cabin scenario as previously described. Basically, if at any point along the way you use a resource paid for by the government, then you should also pay taxes to that government. If you so much as walk down a paved road because its easier than romping through the woods you better be paying for the road you walk on, because it wasn't conjured up using fairy dust.

[myrkul]

Alternately, I seriously doubt that myrkul has ever killed someone for paying their taxes. (correct me if I'm wrong)  It's great to stand on your principle, and the non-aggression principle supports your defense against aggression.  Agorists, anarchists, libertarians, voluntarists, etc. expand upon it and say that which is wrong for an individual is wrong for a collective, so taxation, conscription, war, etc. are illegitimate.  Though a statist would be your enemy, we aren't to the point of punching every statist in the nose because they are a statist.

I haven't, and I honestly wouldn't. That's quite extreme. I would, however, point out that they are supporting aggression, and if that doesn't change their mind, I will refuse to associate with them. Only if they continued to force themselves and their views on me, would I act in defense. Hawker's been pretty adamant about forcing his views on me.

If you so much as walk down a paved road because its easier than romping through the woods you better be paying for the road you walk on, because it wasn't conjured up using fairy dust.

Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road?

[Hawker]

Quite a vicious little chap aren't you?  Freedom means obeying your rules and those that disagree are legitimate targets.  

And here are my only rules:
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET

There's a reason the libertarian mascot is a porcupine.

Oh really?  Who is this myrkul making threats then?

I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.  

Now, why would I do that?

Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?

Thats a threat.  Don't try running away from your thuggish tendencies.

That's no more a threat than the quills on a porcupine are. You pay people to rob, kidnap, or kill me, I am entitled to fight back.

So everyone who pays taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

[AzureEngineer]

Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road?

Its a package deal. If you really didn't like the war, you would take the extra step and not use the road.

[myrkul]

Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road?

Its a package deal. If you really didn't like the war, you would take the extra step and not use the road.

Or, I could voluntarily pay for only those services I used, and not force people to pay for services they don't use, or even want.

So everyone who pays taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Let's turn this around:
So everyone who doesn't pay taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Oh, wow, only takes changing one word to turn the position you're (falsely) accusing me of into exactly your position.

[Hawker]

Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road?

Its a package deal. If you really didn't like the war, you would take the extra step and not use the road.

Or, I could voluntarily pay for only those services I used, and not force people to pay for services they don't use, or even want.

So everyone who pays taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Let's turn this around:
So everyone who doesn't pay taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Oh, wow, only takes one word to turn the position you're (falsely) accusing me of into exactly your position.

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

[myrkul]

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself.

[Hawker]

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself.

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you and then you complain that they are not "a real man" if they don't descend to your level.

[Severian]

Basically, if at any point along the way you use a resource paid for by the government

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

[wdmw]

It's tedious reading two sides of an argument talking past each other.

I haven't, and I honestly wouldn't. That's quite extreme. I would, however, point out that they are supporting aggression, and if that doesn't change their mind, I will refuse to associate with them. Only if they continued to force themselves and their views on me, would I act in defense. Hawker's been pretty adamant about forcing his views on me.

So everyone who pays taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Well, thanks to one of you for being reasonable.

[Severian]

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you

Show me where myrkul threatened this. It sounds out character.

[Hawker]

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you

Show me where myrkul threatened this. It sounds out character.

Long thread.  Look for a post from cryptanarchist saying he will strangle me.  And then myrkul joining in.  I'm shocked at myrkul sinking to this level as well.

[myrkul]

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself.

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you and then you complain that they are not "a real man" if they don't descend to your level.

You pay people to kill people who disagree with you. Is murder by proxy somehow better?

Face it, Hawker. You support murder. You support robbery. You support people who make the Mafia look like the nice guys. And you're calling me a bad guy for resisting that.

[Hawker]

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself.

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you and then you complain that they are not "a real man" if they don't descend to your level.

You pay people to kill people who disagree with you. Is murder by proxy somehow better?

Face it, Hawker. You support murder. You support robbery. You support people who make the Mafia look like the nice guys. And you're calling me a bad guy for resisting that.

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

[Severian]

You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery

That's actually true. Remember that the entire German nation was held accountable for the crimes of its leaders. Personally, I don't think this is the correct view. But to be consistent in your support of the government that prosecuted the Germans, you must also hold the same view for your own support of a criminal, war-mongering government.

and that entitles you to kill them. 

Not speaking for anyone but myself, but I only have the right to defend myself from a present and physical threat. Killing people for ideological disagreements is a practice best left to those that support the State.

[myrkul]

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself?

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

You can not delegate a right you do not have.

[Hawker]

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself?

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

You can not delegate a right you do not have.

Again, you are claiming that if someone disagrees with you, that means they want to kill you so that you can kill them yourself and call it "self-defence."

That's sickening. 

[Hawker]

You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery

That's actually true. Remember that the entire German nation was held accountable for the crimes of its leaders. Personally, I don't think this is the correct view. But to be consistent in your support of the government that prosecuted the Germans, you must also hold the same view for your own support of a criminal, war-mongering government.

and that entitles you to kill them. 

Not speaking for anyone but myself, but I only have the right to defend myself from a present and physical threat. Killing people for ideological disagreements is a practice best left to those that support the State.

Agree.  Disagreement is normal.  Death threats, less so.

[Severian]

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

A very difficult concept for some to understand, especially those with a vested interest in force and fraud via having a government job or those that receive government benefits.

[myrkul]

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself?

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

You can not delegate a right you do not have.

Again, you are claiming that if someone disagrees with you, that means they want to kill you so that you can kill them yourself and call it "self-defence."

That's sickening. 

No, I am saying that if someone pays a murderer, knowing that they pay a murderer, that makes them just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

I'm not going to kill someone just because they "disagree with me."

[Hawker]

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself?

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

You can not delegate a right you do not have.

Again, you are claiming that if someone disagrees with you, that means they want to kill you so that you can kill them yourself and call it "self-defence."

That's sickening. 

No, I am saying that if someone pays a murderer, knowing that they pay a murderer, that makes them just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

I'm not going to kill someone just because they "disagree with me."

Back-pedalling?  Lets clarify.

I believe in democracy, a strong state with separation of powers and that if you live in such a state, you can be compelled to pay taxes.  If I meet you, I will say this to you face to face.  You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

When this death threat thing started, you said you would kill me.  Since then, you have insisted you are entitled to kill me.  Is that still your position?

[myrkul]

You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

Do you deny that?

[Hawker]

You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

Do you deny that?

Lets look at the post you editted:

I believe in democracy, a strong state with separation of powers and that if you live in such a state, you can be compelled to pay taxes.  If I meet you, I will say this to you face to face.  You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

When this death threat thing started, you said you would kill me.  Since then, you have insisted you are entitled to kill me.  Is that still your position?

The interesting thing is that given the chance to step back from the death threats, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  

Do you think no-one will notice?

[myrkul]

You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

Do you deny that?

The interesting thing is that given the chance to step back from the death threats, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  Do you think no-one will notice?

Answer the question. Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

[Severian]

I believe in democracy, a strong state with separation of powers and that if you live in such a state, you can be compelled to pay taxes. 

So if I happen to believe that the government I live under isn't legit and refuse to pay taxes, are you saying that said government has the legitimate power to use violence on me in lieu of being paid?

Is that democracy?

[Hawker]

You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

Do you deny that?

The interesting thing is that given the chance to step back from the death threats, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  Do you think no-one will notice?

Answer the question. Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

You don't have the right to act as judge, jury and executioner.  Whether or not I deny your beliefs does not give you the right to kill me.

Again, look at yourself.  You are making death threats because your argument doesn't persuade.  Its disgusting.

[Hawker]

I believe in democracy, a strong state with separation of powers and that if you live in such a state, you can be compelled to pay taxes.  

So if I happen to believe that the government I live under isn't legit and refuse to pay taxes, are you saying that said government has the legitimate power to use violence on me in lieu of being paid?

Is that democracy?

If it is a democracy, then it does have the right to collect taxes and that means the right to use violence as a last resort.  

[myrkul]

You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

Do you deny that?

The interesting thing is that given the chance to step back from the death threats, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  Do you think no-one will notice?

Answer the question. Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

You don't have the right to act as judge, jury and executioner.  Whether or not I deny your beliefs does not give you the right to kill me.

Again, look at yourself.  You are making death threats because your argument doesn't persuade.  Its disgusting.

The interesting thing is that when given the chance to own up to your actions, and change the evil of your ways, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  Do you think no-one will notice?
Answer the question. Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

[Severian]

Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

Myrkul, I have great respect for your opinions but have to agree with hawker here. I can see where your argument is tending and to be honest, it'll take you down the Trotsky Road if you get my drift.

[Severian]

If it is a democracy, then it does have the right to collect taxes and that means the right to use violence as a last resort.  

Then its not a government of consent. Non-consent in government is tyranny.

If you believe in tyranny, just say so.

[Hawker]

You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

Do you deny that?

The interesting thing is that given the chance to step back from the death threats, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  Do you think no-one will notice?

Answer the question. Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

You don't have the right to act as judge, jury and executioner.  Whether or not I deny your beliefs does not give you the right to kill me.

Again, look at yourself.  You are making death threats because your argument doesn't persuade.  Its disgusting.

The interesting thing is that when given the chance to own up to your actions, and change the evil of your ways, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  Do you think no-one will notice?
Answer the question. Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.  So your "no state" argument would be a threat to my life and property if it came to pass.

Does that make you a danger to me?  Yes - anyone who spreads a dangerous idea like allowing local communities to take law into their own hands is a threat to people like me.

Does that entitle me to kill you?  No it doesn't.

And that is where we are different.  I can accept that you disagree - you have to go one step further and add death threats.

[Hawker]

If it is a democracy, then it does have the right to collect taxes and that means the right to use violence as a last resort.  

Then its not a government of consent. Non-consent in government is tyranny.

If you believe in tyranny, just say so.

Non-consent in government is not tyranny.  If it was, then every drunk who feels entitled to piss in public is subject to tyranny.

[Severian]

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.

How is that any different from what you advocate - pay taxes or face imprisonment and possible death?

[Severian]

Non-consent in government is not tyranny. 

We had a little argument about that on this side of the pond in the late 18th century. Maybe you remember it?

[myrkul]

Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

Myrkul, I have great respect for your opinions but have to agree with hawker here. I can see where your argument is tending and to be honest, it'll take you down the Trotsky Road if you get my drift.

Anyone who knowingly supports tyranny is a sociopath. The kindest thing I can and should do is refuse to associate with them. As I stated before, if they choose to make an issue of it, I'll defend myself.

[Hawker]

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.

How is that any different from what you advocate - pay taxes or face imprisonment and possible death?

I do not advocate that myrkul be killed for disagreeing with me.

[Hawker]

Non-consent in government is not tyranny. 

We had a little argument about that on this side of the pond in the late 18th century. Maybe you remember it?

You had a taxation without representation argument.  You then went on to use your military to crush the Whiskey rebellion which was a tax dispute.  I'm sure you remember that part :-)

[Hawker]

Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

Myrkul, I have great respect for your opinions but have to agree with hawker here. I can see where your argument is tending and to be honest, it'll take you down the Trotsky Road if you get my drift.

Anyone who knowingly supports tyranny is a sociopath. The kindest thing I can and should do is refuse to associate with them. As I stated before, if they choose to make an issue of it, I'll defend myself.

You threaten to kill those you disagree with and then call them sociopaths? 

[Severian]

Anyone who knowingly supports tyranny is a sociopath. The kindest thing I can and should do is refuse to associate with them.

That's the point I've reached. Our culture breeds those lovely flavors of narcissism and sociopathy that it makes it more and more difficult to avoid them. There are even family members I no longer speak to because of their incredibly fucked up political beliefs that have compelled them to threaten me with violence because of what I believe.

[myrkul]

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.

How is that any different from what you advocate - pay taxes or face imprisonment and possible death?

I do not advocate that myrkul be killed for disagreeing with me.

Well, it's good to see that you've finally come around and agreed that payment for government services should be voluntary. In that case, I think we can end this conversation, now. You're no longer threatening me.

[Severian]

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.

How is that any different from what you advocate - pay taxes or face imprisonment and possible death?

I do not advocate that myrkul be killed for disagreeing with me.

This part of the conversation isn't about myrkul.

I asked you what makes the dhimmi tax different from you advocate? They both look the same to me - "pay up or we're gonna work you over."

[Hawker]

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.

How is that any different from what you advocate - pay taxes or face imprisonment and possible death?

I do not advocate that myrkul be killed for disagreeing with me.

Well, it's good to see that you've finally come around and agreed that payment for government services should be voluntary. I think we can end this conversation, now. You're no longer threatening me.

I never have threatened you.  And I have never said that payment for government services should be voluntary.  If you owe tax, you have to pay it.  

[Hawker]

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.

How is that any different from what you advocate - pay taxes or face imprisonment and possible death?

I do not advocate that myrkul be killed for disagreeing with me.

This part of the conversation isn't about myrkul.

I asked you what makes the dhimmi tax different from you advocate? They both look the same to me - "pay up or we're gonna work you over."

Oh I agree.  There is no such thing as a society without violence so the best we can do is have an institution that has a monopoly on violence and then have the servants of that institution tied up in rules that limit their scope for violence.  That institution is the democratic state.

[myrkul]

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.

How is that any different from what you advocate - pay taxes or face imprisonment and possible death?

I do not advocate that myrkul be killed for disagreeing with me.

Well, it's good to see that you've finally come around and agreed that payment for government services should be voluntary. I think we can end this conversation, now. You're no longer threatening me.

I never have threatened you.

No? What's this, then?

 And I have never said that payment for government services should be voluntary.

Sounds like a threat, to me. Pay up, or you get worked over.

[Hawker]

I live in an area where if the state failed, we would be subject to sharia law, I would be forced to pay special taxes for not being a muslim and could end up being killed.

How is that any different from what you advocate - pay taxes or face imprisonment and possible death?

I do not advocate that myrkul be killed for disagreeing with me.

Well, it's good to see that you've finally come around and agreed that payment for government services should be voluntary. I think we can end this conversation, now. You're no longer threatening me.

I never have threatened you.

No? What's this, then?

And I have never said that payment for government services should be voluntary.

Sounds like a threat, to me. Pay up, or you get worked over.

That is indeed a threat.  But I don't make it - its the law.  You personally made death threats.

[myrkul]

 There is no such thing as a society without violence so the best we can do is have an institution that has a monopoly on violence and then have the servants of that institution tied up in rules that limit their scope for violence.  That institution is the democratic state.

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.

That is indeed a threat.  But I don't make it - its the law.  You personally made death threats.

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

[Severian]

You had a taxation without representation argument.

We won the argument, if you'll recall.

You then went on to use your military to crush the Whiskey rebellion which was a tax dispute.  I'm sure you remember that part :-)

It wasn't "crushed". Americans went for decades telling the government tax agents to go fuck themselves.

The main distortion of the Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion was its alleged confinement to four counties of western Pennsylvania. From recent research, we now know that no one paid the tax on whiskey throughout the American “back-country”: that is, the frontier areas of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and the entire state of Kentucky.

President Washington and Secretary Hamilton chose to make a fuss about Western Pennsylvania precisely because in that region there was a cadre of wealthy officials who were willing to collect taxes. Such a cadre did not even exist in the other areas of the American frontier; there was no fuss or violence against tax collectors in Kentucky and the rest of the back-country because there was no one willing to be a tax collector.

The whiskey tax was particularly hated in the back-country because whisky production and distilling were widespread; whiskey was not only a home product for most farmers, it was often used as a money, as a medium of exchange for transactions. Furthermore, in keeping with Hamilton’s program, the tax bore more heavily on the smaller distilleries. As a result, many large distilleries supported the tax as a means of crippling their smaller and more numerous competitors.

The Real Story of the Whiskey Rebellion

[Severian]

 There is no such thing as a society without violence so the best we can do is have an institution that has a monopoly on violence and then have the servants of that institution tied up in rules that limit their scope for violence.  

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

[Hawker]

You had a taxation without representation argument.

We won the argument, if you'll recall.

You then went on to use your military to crush the Whiskey rebellion which was a tax dispute.  I'm sure you remember that part :-)


It wasn't "crushed". Americans went for decades telling the government tax agents to go fuck themselves.

The main distortion of the Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion was its alleged confinement to four counties of western Pennsylvania. From recent research, we now know that no one paid the tax on whiskey throughout the American “back-country”: that is, the frontier areas of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and the entire state of Kentucky.

President Washington and Secretary Hamilton chose to make a fuss about Western Pennsylvania precisely because in that region there was a cadre of wealthy officials who were willing to collect taxes. Such a cadre did not even exist in the other areas of the American frontier; there was no fuss or violence against tax collectors in Kentucky and the rest of the back-country because there was no one willing to be a tax collector.

The whiskey tax was particularly hated in the back-country because whisky production and distilling were widespread; whiskey was not only a home product for most farmers, it was often used as a money, as a medium of exchange for transactions. Furthermore, in keeping with Hamilton’s program, the tax bore more heavily on the smaller distilleries. As a result, many large distilleries supported the tax as a means of crippling their smaller and more numerous competitors.

The Real Story of the Whiskey Rebellion

Dammit Severian you broke the tags 

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.

[AzureEngineer]

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

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.

[Hawker]

 There is no such thing as a society without violence so the best we can do is have an institution that has a monopoly on violence and then have the servants of that institution tied up in rules that limit their scope for violence.  

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

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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

[Hawker]

 There is no such thing as a society without violence so the best we can do is have an institution that has a monopoly on violence and then have the servants of that institution tied up in rules that limit their scope for violence.  That institution is the democratic state.

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.

That is indeed a threat.  But I don't make it - its the law.  You personally made death threats.

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

As are you.  And we can debate what is a good way to run society.  What we don't do is start to threaten people whose vision of society is not the same as ours.  

[Hawker]

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.

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

Its a fine argument - it doesn't give you the right to kill people who disagree.

[wdmw]

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.

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

[Severian]

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.

I've never been a fan of any version of the American government for this very reason.

The Constitution was written to create a central taxing authority. That taxing authority was absent from the Articles of Confederation and the lovers of central government of the day wanted it in there.

I'm an American that dislikes the Constitution because it gives too much power to government and is actually not an effective means of protecting the rights of human beings. I don't need a Bill of Rights to tell me what my rights are as they're self-evident.

If you're up for a read, try some Lysander Spooner for a taste of what Americans not enamored of government used to know:

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

[Severian]

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.

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

Thanks for letting me know!

[Severian]

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.

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.

[Hawker]

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.

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

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.  

[Hawker]

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.

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.

Again, there is going to be some sort of government.  The question is what is the best form.  Would I like to live in a society where jails and debt collectors are not needed?  Of course - I'd love it!  But none of us will ever live in such a society unless there is life after death and we do become angels.  Absent that, I am far more interested in a good government than a bad one.  

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

[Severian]

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

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

[Severian]

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

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.

[AzureEngineer]

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

Thanks for letting me know!

Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products, which tax evaders always fail to do. Many people "boycott" EA by pirating their games. That isn't boycotting, its stealing. Too many people want to have it both ways, because they're brainless thugs.

[Severian]

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

I don't purchase lies, murder and theft so I'm all set.

[myrkul]

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. 

Take away it's monopoly.

[Hawker]

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

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 think you are being idealistic to the point of blinding yourself.  You don't like violence do you?  You don't have a way to convince society to live with government yet do you?  So it makes sense to choose a style of government with as low a level of violence as possible.  Any other stance is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Sharia is not the least violent style of government.  Given the choice, I am sure you would choose the US system with all its faults over a Sharia based system.

[Hawker]

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.  

Take away it's monopoly.

So you can legally kill me?  No thanks - I'll pass.

[AzureEngineer]

I don't purchase lies, murder and theft so I'm all set.

Unless you grow your own food and live in a cabin out in the woods, you purchase all three of those things every day.

[Severian]

You don't like violence do you?...  Given the choice, I am sure you would choose the US system with all its faults over a Sharia based system.

I don't like violence as you said so I'd choose neither.

The good thing about America is that it's still possible to get by without government if one makes the right choices.

[Severian]

Unless you grow your own food and live in a cabin out in the woods, you purchase all three of those things every day.

You lack imagination.

[AzureEngineer]

You lack imagination.

Giving up and avoiding conversation? How droll.

[myrkul]

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.  

Take away it's monopoly.

So you can legally kill me?  No thanks - I'll pass.

How would removing the government monopoly on law enforcement allow me to legally kill you if you don't threaten me with violence?

Unless you would? Would you continue to try and set up a monopoly on violence?

[Hawker]

You don't like violence do you?...  Given the choice, I am sure you would choose the US system with all its faults over a Sharia based system.

I don't like violence as you said so I'd choose neither.

The good thing about America is that it's still possible to get by without government if one makes the right choices.

How are you so sure they won't come after you?  The very idea of being able to stay out of the government's way is anathema to theocracy based movements.  

[Hawker]

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.  

Take away it's monopoly.

So you can legally kill me?  No thanks - I'll pass.

How would removing the government monopoly on law enforcement allow me to legally kill you if you don't threaten me with violence?

Unless you would? Would you continue to try and set up a monopoly on violence?

Its illegal for you to kill me now and you have threatened to do so.  Are you trying to say that you'd not do it if it was legal to kill me? 

Think before you post please.

[Severian]

Giving up and avoiding conversation? How droll.

I prefer to have conversations with people that might prove fruitful for one or both parties. I may have misjudged, but it didn't seem like this one was tending that way.

Feel free prove me wrong.

[Severian]

The very idea of being able to stay out of the government's way is anathema to theocracy based movements.  

It's also anathema to modern civil governments.

The only religious nutjobs we have to worry about in America are the Christian and Jewish ones. The Patriot Act wasn't written and passed by Sharia advocates.

[Hawker]

The very idea of being able to stay out of the government's way is anathema to theocracy based movements.  

It's also anathema to modern civil governments.

The only religious nutjobs we have to worry about in America are the Christian and Jewish ones. The Patriot Act wasn't written and passed by Sharia advocates.

Your biblical nutjobs sit around saying "if only people didn't fornicate" - that doesn't help them deal with the problems fornication causes in their communities.  A "lets give them condoms so that at least they don't get pox and have babies" approach would work better.

Likewise, your saying "if only government didn't exist" doesn't affect the Patriot Act one bit.  A movement to repeal it or amend it might though

[myrkul]

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.  

Take away it's monopoly.

So you can legally kill me?  No thanks - I'll pass.

How would removing the government monopoly on law enforcement allow me to legally kill you if you don't threaten me with violence?

Unless you would? Would you continue to try and set up a monopoly on violence?

Its illegal for you to kill me now and you have threatened to do so.  Are you trying to say that you'd not do it if it was legal to kill me? 

Think before you post please.

I haven't threatened to kill you. I have said that I will respond with violence if you threaten me (by advocating that the government should forcibly extract payment from me and kidnap or kill me if I resist) in my presence. I would advise against threatening people.

And I'm still waiting on an answer to whether or not you would continue to advocate and support a violent monopoly.
And on how, exactly, removing the government's monopoly on law enforcement would make murder legal.

[Hawker]

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.  

Take away it's monopoly.

So you can legally kill me?  No thanks - I'll pass.

How would removing the government monopoly on law enforcement allow me to legally kill you if you don't threaten me with violence?

Unless you would? Would you continue to try and set up a monopoly on violence?

Its illegal for you to kill me now and you have threatened to do so.  Are you trying to say that you'd not do it if it was legal to kill me?  

Think before you post please.

I haven't threatened to kill you. I have said that I will respond with violence if you threaten me (by advocating that the government should forcibly extract payment from me and kidnap or kill me if I resist) in my presence. I would advise against threatening people.

And I'm still waiting on an answer to whether or not you would continue to advocate and support a violent monopoly.
And on how, exactly, removing the government's monopoly on law enforcement would make murder legal.

So you tell me that you will respond with violence if I support democracy and you deny that's a threat.  And you say that threatening to strangle me is not a threat to kill

Again, think before you post.  

[AzureEngineer]

I prefer to have conversations with people that might prove fruitful for one or both parties. I may have misjudged, but it didn't seem like this one was tending that way.

Feel free prove me wrong.

What a disappointing cop-out. Maybe you'll have a more vested interest in the subject one day.

[Severian]

What a disappointing cop-out. Maybe you'll have a more vested interest in the subject one day.

Damn. I'm right again.

[Severian]

A movement to repeal it or amend it might though

Trying to repeal the Patriot Act would be construed as terrorism by Homeland Security.

[myrkul]

So you tell me that you will respond with violence if I support democracy and you deny that's a threat.  And then you say that threatening to strangle me is not a threat to kill

Again, think before you post. 

Did I say I would strangle you?
No... I didn't.

And I would advise that you think before you post. If someone tells you that they paid a man to mug you, and kill you if you resist, what would you do?

Violently removing them from your presence would be the nicest thing, I would think. (Of course, you'll probably call someone to do it, since you prefer to do your violence by proxy.)

[Hawker]

So you tell me that you will respond with violence if I support democracy and you deny that's a threat.  And then you say that threatening to strangle me is not a threat to kill

Again, think before you post.  

Did I say I would strangle you?
No... I didn't.

And I would advise that you think before you post. If someone tells you that they paid a man to mug you, and kill you if you resist, what would you do?

Violently removing them from your presence would be the nicest thing, I would think. (Of course, you'll probably call someone to do it, since you don't like getting your hands dirty.)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206265.msg2201602#msg2201602

Actually it was crytoanarchist said he would strangle me and you joined in to say you would be violent.

Are you saying now that your threat of violence was short of a threat to kill?  I hope you aren't expecting praise for that step back from brutishness.

[wdmw]

So you tell me that you will respond with violence if I support democracy and you deny that's a threat.  And then you say that threatening to strangle me is not a threat to kill

Again, think before you post.  

Did I say I would strangle you?
No... I didn't.

And I would advise that you think before you post. If someone tells you that they paid a man to mug you, and kill you if you resist, what would you do?

Violently removing them from your presence would be the nicest thing, I would think. (Of course, you'll probably call someone to do it, since you don't like getting your hands dirty.)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206265.msg2201602#msg2201602

Actually it was crytoanarchist said he would strangle me and you joined in to say you would be violent.

Are you saying now that your threat of violence was short of a threat to kill?  I hope do aren't expecting praise for that step back from brutishness.

Hey, I heard myrkul threatened to kill you.  What was that?

[myrkul]

Would you please stop avoiding the questions I ask you? I'm still waiting on an answer to whether or not you would continue to advocate and support a violent monopoly.
And on how, exactly, removing the government's monopoly on law enforcement would make murder legal.

[Hawker]

Would you please stop avoiding the questions I ask you? I'm still waiting on an answer to whether or not you would continue to advocate and support a violent monopoly.
And on how, exactly, removing the government's monopoly on law enforcement would make murder legal.

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder. 

I've always made that clear.  Your response has been to say that you will treat my support for democracy and a state with a monopoly on violence as an excuse to use violence yourself and then call it "self defence."

That's thuggery. 

[myrkul]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder. 

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

[Hawker]

A movement to repeal it or amend it might though

Trying to repeal the Patriot Act would be construed as terrorism by Homeland Security.

Its a big ask I know.  But people like the ACLU and so on do act as a brake on government and the government does tend to back off when faced with outraged citizens.  

The bigger point is that you live in a place where the law is basically OK.  So do I.  Scrapping that for a place where the local imam spends Friday warning that moneylenders, Jews and homosexuals are a threat to heaven and that you go to heaven with 80 virgins for killing infidels does not appeal to me.  So for me, the state is a good thing.

[Hawker]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

...snip...

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

I've always made that clear.  Your response has been to say that you will treat my support for democracy and a state with a monopoly on violence as an excuse to use violence yourself and then call it "self defence."

That's thuggery.  

Here you are standing behind your threat of violence and editing out references to it in an effort to change the subject.  Except you seem to be saying that its not a threat to join in my being strangled.  

[myrkul]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

[wdmw]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

[myrkul]

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

Probably not, I tried to some time ago.

He's gone from advocating state violence against me to outright saying that state violence is the only thing protecting me from him.

[Hawker]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

You have edited my post again to avoid the threat to hurt me. You've stated that you will use violence if we meet and if I don't change my beliefs to suit you.  

We see where you stand and that you won't back down.  Luckily we do have laws and jails so that if you act on your absurd sense of entitlement, there will be a cage with your name on it.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way. 

[myrkul]

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way.  

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

EDIT: I suspect another difference is that I've written a program that makes a socket connection to mtgox in C99 in between fending off death threats.  My work is done so off to bed

[myrkul]

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. To say nothing of your comment that without a State, you consider murder to be A-OK.

[cryptoanarchist]

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

Thanks for letting me know!

Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products, which tax evaders always fail to do. Many people "boycott" EA by pirating their games. That isn't boycotting, its stealing. Too many people want to have it both ways, because they're brainless thugs.

The government doesn't produce anything- they contract with funds that they've extorted.

Unless you grow your own food and live in a cabin out in the woods, you purchase all three of those things every day.

What kind of moron are you? The government doesn't make the food I eat, nor did it build the house I live in.

Saying that people who refuse to pay taxes are morally wrong to use roads is a childish argument. The money to build those roads was stolen.

If I put you in a cage, and then steal your money to feed you, are you morally wrong to eat it to survive? Does that imply consent to you?

I think you know the right answer, but are just being an asshole.

[myrkul]

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

Thanks for letting me know!

Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products, which tax evaders always fail to do. Many people "boycott" EA by pirating their games. That isn't boycotting, its stealing. Too many people want to have it both ways, because they're brainless thugs.

The government doesn't produce anything- they contract with funds that they've extorted.

Saying that people who refuse to pay taxes are morally wrong to use roads is a childish argument. The money to build those roads was stolen.

If I put you in a cage, and then steal your money to feed you, are you morally wrong to eat it to survive? Does that imply consent to you?

I think you know the right answer, but are just being an asshole.

Well, if you think being stuffed in a cage and being fed with food bought with your stolen money is wrong, you should starve yourself.

[Stampbit]

the government doesnt spy on you, it just overhears sounds coming from your bedroom.

[Hawker]

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me.  ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind.  So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.  Of course I would choose to have you arrested, prosecuted, punished and I would sue for damages.  If you are violent, that's exactly what you deserve.

What an interesting thing it is that when pushed, it turns out your idea of a free society is one in which you personally are free to attack people.  For all your whining about our existing system, at least we do have freedom of speech.

Back to the main topic of paying taxes for the government to spy on people.  If there are people who want to use violence to achieve their aims or just for vent their frustration that their ideas are never going to win elections, I want the government to spy on them and do whatever it takes to stop them.  A free society where people can peacefully debate ideas is one of the great achievements of our civilization and as such its well worth the taxes paid to defend it.  Best money ever spent!

[myrkul]

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me.  ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind.  So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

[Hawker]

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me.  ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind.  So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence.  And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths.

As I said, if taxes are spent stopping people like you from using violence to achieve their goals, its money well spent.

[myrkul]

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me.  ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind.  So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence.  And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths.

Quit twisting my words, you sociopath. I want to remove the State's monopoly on violence so that the entity enforcing my rights isn't violating them itself. Not all Democrats are sociopaths, just the ones that know and understand that they are authorizing the use of violence against peaceful people, and support it anyway. Like yourself.

[Hawker]

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me.  ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind.  So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence.  And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths.

Quit twisting my words, you sociopath. I want to remove the State's monopoly on violence so that the entity enforcing my rights isn't violating them itself. Not all Democrats are sociopaths, just the ones that know and understand that they are authorizing the use of violence against peaceful people, and support it anyway. Like yourself.

You make threats saying that my support for democracy entitles you to use violence against me.  You are against democracy because you personally want to be in a position to use violence.  You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself.  What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down?  Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

[myrkul]

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me.  ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind.  So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence.  And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths.

Quit twisting my words, you sociopath. I want to remove the State's monopoly on violence so that the entity enforcing my rights isn't violating them itself. Not all Democrats are sociopaths, just the ones that know and understand that they are authorizing the use of violence against peaceful people, and support it anyway. Like yourself.

You make threats saying that my support for democracy entitles you to use violence against me.  You are against democracy because you personally want to be in a position to use violence.  

Let me make this perfectly clear: I am against Democracy because is it war waged with ballots, and the side with the most votes is authorizing violence against the side with the fewer votes simply because there are more of them.
It's might makes right, plain and simple.

You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself.  What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down?  Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself.

[Hawker]

...snip...

You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself.  What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down?  Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself.

So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me.  I won't back down in my belief in democracy.  So how far will you go?  

[myrkul]

...snip...

You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself.  What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down?  Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself.

So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me.  I won't back down in my belief in democracy.  So how far will you go?  

I don't want you to back down in your belief in might makes right. Just in forcing that view on me. If you leave, and don't come back, that will be the end of it.

[Hawker]

...snip...

You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself.  What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down?  Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself.

So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me.  I won't back down in my belief in democracy.  So how far will you go?  

I don't want you to back down in your belief in might makes right. Just in forcing that view on me. If you leave, and don't come back, that will be the end of it.

I'm not going anywhere.  I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you.  You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing.  What's next? 

[myrkul]

...snip...

You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself.  What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down?  Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself.

So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me.  I won't back down in my belief in democracy.  So how far will you go? 

I don't want you to back down in your belief in might makes right. Just in forcing that view on me. If you leave, and don't come back, that will be the end of it.

I'm not going anywhere.  I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you.  You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing.  What's next? 

You're refusing to leave my property?
I've kicked you off, and you return, continuing to advocate your violent society?

[Hawker]

...snip...

You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself.  What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down?  Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself.

So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me.  I won't back down in my belief in democracy.  So how far will you go? 

I don't want you to back down in your belief in might makes right. Just in forcing that view on me. If you leave, and don't come back, that will be the end of it.

I'm not going anywhere.  I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you.  You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing.  What's next? 

You're refusing to leave my property?
I've kicked you off, and you return, continuing to advocate your violent society?

Stop changing the subject.  We never discussed it being on your property.  You quote was that I was within your fist range.

I have never been on your property.    I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you.  You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing.  What's next? 

[AzureEngineer]

I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.

[myrkul]

...snip...

You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself.  What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down?  Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself.

So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me.  I won't back down in my belief in democracy.  So how far will you go? 

I don't want you to back down in your belief in might makes right. Just in forcing that view on me. If you leave, and don't come back, that will be the end of it.

I'm not going anywhere.  I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you.  You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing.  What's next? 

You're refusing to leave my property?
I've kicked you off, and you return, continuing to advocate your violent society?

Stop changing the subject.  We never discussed it being on your property.  You quote was that I was within your fist range.

I have never been on your property.    I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you.  You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing.  What's next? 

If I can rightfully violently remove you from my presence, then you're on my property. If we're not on my property when you do this, I will go to my property, or ask the property owner to remove you. Will you chase me there, or re-enter the property, to continue to force yourself on me?

[myrkul]

I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.

Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

[Hawker]

I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.

Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

You don't know what that means.  You have said you will attack me, using violence, because I disagree with you.  You backed up crytoanarchist when he said he would strangle me with his bare hands.  You make weasel assertions that my words go "beyond disagreement" and that entitles you to be violent.

Pasting wise Latin sayings doesn't mean you understand them.  There is no excuse for you using violence in pursuit of your political goals.

[Hawker]

...snip...
If I can rightfully violently remove you from my presence, then you're on my property. If we're not on my property when you do this, I will go to my property, or ask the property owner to remove you. Will you chase me there, or re-enter the property, to continue to force yourself on me?

Again with the transparent attempt to change subject from your assertion that you will use violence if I disagree with you.  And you use the word "rightfully" as if there was some excuse for your resorting to violence.

Your problem is that your ideas don't convince so you are considering violence.  You are not the first person to get frustrated that living in a democracy means he can't have his own way.

[myrkul]

I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.

Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

You don't know what that means.  You have said you will attack me, using violence, because I disagree with you.  You backed up crytoanarchist when he said he would strangle me with his bare hands.  You make weasel assertions that my words go "beyond disagreement" and that entitles you to be violent.

Pasting wise Latin sayings doesn't mean you understand them.  There is no excuse for you using violence in pursuit of your political goals.

Says the man whose political goals are violence.

Tell you what, Hawker. I apologize for any confusion. I would never attack you simply for disagreeing with me. I was simply pointing out that your advocacy for a violent monopoly is essentially a threat to peaceful people who disagree with you.

[Hawker]

I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.

Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

You don't know what that means.  You have said you will attack me, using violence, because I disagree with you.  You backed up crytoanarchist when he said he would strangle me with his bare hands.  You make weasel assertions that my words go "beyond disagreement" and that entitles you to be violent.

Pasting wise Latin sayings doesn't mean you understand them.  There is no excuse for you using violence in pursuit of your political goals.

Says the man whose political goals are violence.

Tell you what, Hawker. I apologize for any confusion. I would never attack you simply for disagreeing with me. I was simply pointing out that your advocacy for a violent monopoly is essentially a threat to peaceful people who disagree with you.

Apology accepted.  I was sad to see you go there.

[myrkul]

I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.

Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

You don't know what that means.  You have said you will attack me, using violence, because I disagree with you.  You backed up crytoanarchist when he said he would strangle me with his bare hands.  You make weasel assertions that my words go "beyond disagreement" and that entitles you to be violent.

Pasting wise Latin sayings doesn't mean you understand them.  There is no excuse for you using violence in pursuit of your political goals.

Says the man whose political goals are violence.

Tell you what, Hawker. I apologize for any confusion. I would never attack you simply for disagreeing with me. I was simply pointing out that your advocacy for a violent monopoly is essentially a threat to peaceful people who disagree with you.

Apology accepted.  I was sad to see you go there.

Thank you for the demonstration of why violently resisting the state is futile.
Even though they are the aggressors, it's a fight you cannot win.
Now, can we please move on?

[Hawker]

I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.

Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

You don't know what that means.  You have said you will attack me, using violence, because I disagree with you.  You backed up crytoanarchist when he said he would strangle me with his bare hands.  You make weasel assertions that my words go "beyond disagreement" and that entitles you to be violent.

Pasting wise Latin sayings doesn't mean you understand them.  There is no excuse for you using violence in pursuit of your political goals.

Says the man whose political goals are violence.

Tell you what, Hawker. I apologize for any confusion. I would never attack you simply for disagreeing with me. I was simply pointing out that your advocacy for a violent monopoly is essentially a threat to peaceful people who disagree with you.

Apology accepted.  I was sad to see you go there.

Thank you for the demonstration of why violently resisting the state is futile.
Even though they are the aggressors, it's a fight you cannot win.
Now, can we please move on?

I feel you and crytoanarchist have demonstrated the value of a state having a monopoly on violence.    I've moved on...feel free to have last word.

[myrkul]

I feel you and crytoanarchist have demonstrated the value of a state having a monopoly on violence. 

Hardly.
Don't you think it would be best if the agency preventing you from being robbed didn't have the ability to rob you?

[Hawker]

I feel you and crytoanarchist have demonstrated the value of a state having a monopoly on violence.

Hardly.
Don't you think it would be best if the agency preventing you from being robbed didn't have the ability to rob you?

I believe that no-one has the right to strangle a person - regardless of whether bare hands are used.  There may be cases where the death penalty is right - I don't really approve of it ever but that kind of casual violence is unacceptable.

If there is a dispute, I believe that any violence should follow a trial before a jury of your peers. The rules should be made by a body elected by your peers.  The enforcement should be by an institution created by your peers.  These 3 institutions should be separate.  In other words, democracy with all its checks and balances.  

That's slightly off topic to the thread which was whether to pay taxes to pay for all of this.  I believe that part of public expenditure is generally money well spent.

[myrkul]

I believe that no-one has the right to strangle a person - regardless of whether bare hands are used.  There may be cases where the death penalty is right - I don't really approve of it ever but that kind of casual violence is unacceptable.

So, you would not approve of a rape victim attempting to strangle her rapist, in self-defense?

If there is a dispute, I believe that any violence should follow a trial before a jury of your peers. The rules should be made by a body elected by your peers.  The enforcement should be by an institution created by your peers.  These 3 institutions should be separate.  In other words, democracy with all its checks and balances.

And I seek to add one more check: Market competition. Those three institutions are not separate, and cannot be while they all get paid from the same pool of stolen funds, and report to the same hierarchy.

In order for those institutions to be separate, they must be paid for voluntarily by individuals, instead of taking their funds by force, and actually be separate, instead of part of a cartel enforced by violence.

[Hawker]

I believe that no-one has the right to strangle a person - regardless of whether bare hands are used.  There may be cases where the death penalty is right - I don't really approve of it ever but that kind of casual violence is unacceptable.

So, you would not approve of a rape victim attempting to strangle her rapist, in self-defense?

Silly example.  A right to self-defence means she can use reasonable force.  If strangling is reasonable, then its OK.  That's entirely different from wanting to have a right to strangle people who disagree with you.

[Hawker]

WoW has patched - I'm outta here for couple of days while we are updating Honorbuddy.

[myrkul]

I believe that no-one has the right to strangle a person - regardless of whether bare hands are used.  There may be cases where the death penalty is right - I don't really approve of it ever but that kind of casual violence is unacceptable.

So, you would not approve of a rape victim attempting to strangle her rapist, in self-defense?

Silly example.  A right to self-defence means she can use reasonable force.  If strangling is reasonable, then its OK.  That's entirely different from wanting to have a right to strangle people who disagree with you.

Agreed, but do read what you said again:

I believe that no-one has the right to strangle a person - regardless of whether bare hands are used.

You didn't qualify it with allowing defense before, why are you backpedaling now?

And you completely ignored the rest of my post. Please stop editing my posts to try and change the subject.  Hypocrite, is what you are.

If there is a dispute, I believe that any violence should follow a trial before a jury of your peers. The rules should be made by a body elected by your peers.  The enforcement should be by an institution created by your peers.  These 3 institutions should be separate.  In other words, democracy with all its checks and balances.

And I seek to add one more check: Market competition. Those three institutions are not separate, and cannot be while they all get paid from the same pool of stolen funds, and report to the same hierarchy.

In order for those institutions to be separate, they must be paid for voluntarily by individuals, instead of taking their funds by force, and actually be separate, instead of part of a cartel enforced by violence.