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

[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.

[1713560752]

1713560752

[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.