Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 08:11:37 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 9-9-9  (Read 3991 times)
evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:19:40 PM
 #21

Despite whatever privilege you think your government has, if someone (regardless of their title) comes to you and demands that you relinquish your property to them when they have no contract with you to do so, is coercion and plunder. Look thru the veil of obfuscation for a moment and step back and take a bird's-eye view of it. Now imagine you and two other people in the room with you. They could form a government. Why on earth should they ever have any greater permission to relieve you of your property than anybody else in the room?

They do have a contract with me. its called a social contract.

I expect the government to provide roads, schools, police, fire dept, military protection, care and support to the poor and disadvantaged, mediate legal disputes, regulate food and drugs, and enforce workplace safety conditions (among other things).

they expect me to pay taxes to help pay for those services, which i do happily.


1481055097
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481055097

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481055097
Reply with quote  #2

1481055097
Report to moderator
1481055097
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481055097

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481055097
Reply with quote  #2

1481055097
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481055097
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481055097

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481055097
Reply with quote  #2

1481055097
Report to moderator
1481055097
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481055097

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481055097
Reply with quote  #2

1481055097
Report to moderator
1481055097
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481055097

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481055097
Reply with quote  #2

1481055097
Report to moderator
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
 #22

I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes.

How is stealing "less evil" than stealing?

I meant in the economic consequences. An act of theft may be worse than a different act of theft. Income taxes steal both from consumption and savings, while VAT spare savings. Savings play a fundamental role in economic growth. And those people who complain that VAT are regressive because poor people save less are failing to see that every saving is done with the intention of being consumed one day. Maybe by the saver's heirs, but it will be consumed.
A truly regressive "tax" is inflation.
helloworld
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:24:05 PM
 #23

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too. 

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.

EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:26:23 PM
 #24

They do have a contract with me. its called a social contract.

I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:27:11 PM
 #25

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:32:30 PM
 #26


I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.


apparently, you dont understand the term social contract.

whether you want to admit it or not, you reap the benefits of government provided services, so you have to pay the price for them. 

GideonGono
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 398


Long Live The FED


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2011, 03:47:58 PM
 #27


I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.


apparently, you dont understand the term social contract.

whether you want to admit it or not, you reap the benefits of government provided services, so you have to pay the price for them. 



Is the social contract of the USA not the US constitution? Where does it authorize the "services" mention earlier? If your logic is valid then 99% taxes are justified so long as the govt provides some "service" from which you "benefit." Ever since the constitution was instated, the govt has been steadily increasing it's spending and taxing. What kind of a contract is it when the terms change over time to increase your liability and still be valid? That makes no sense.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:50:07 PM
 #28

Welcome back Fred.  Still not worked out the whole society concept I see.  Just to remind you, people do get together and act for their common good.  The action requires money.  Taxation is the mechanism used to pay for it.  You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

Oh, I get the whole society "concept". There's nothing wrong with individuals collectively working together to achieve a goal. That's just like any association, or solidarity. Name your flavor (Rotary Club, Red Cross, Religious groups, Insurance companies, etc.). The same could be said of a government except that they too must form in a voluntary way otherwise it isn't free association anymore but force and coercion. That isn't what we call "consent to be governed".

I have no problem with spending money on any number of things, just so long as those activities don't infringe on the freedoms of others. As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:54:03 PM
 #29

Welcome back Fred.  Still not worked out the whole society concept I see.  Just to remind you, people do get together and act for their common good.  The action requires money.  Taxation is the mechanism used to pay for it.  You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too. 

Oh, I get the whole society "concept". There's nothing wrong with individuals collectively working together to achieve a goal. That's just like any association, or solidarity. Name your flavor (Rotary Club, Red Cross, Religious groups, Insurance companies, etc.). The same could be said of a government except that they too must form in a voluntary way otherwise it isn't free association anymore but force and coercion. That isn't what we call "consent to be governed".

I have no problem with spending your money on any number of things, just so long as those activities don't infringe on the freedoms of others. As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."


Spooner was wrong.  As we discussed earlier, you can own a dog but you don't have a right to set it on fire. 

evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:56:41 PM
 #30

Is the social contract of the USA not the US constitution?

social contract is a philosophical concept and/or political theory, not a legal document, so no. 
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:01:24 PM
 #31


I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.


apparently, you dont understand the term "social contract".

I do know what authoritarians mean when they say 'social contract'. This guy makes a good irony on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQdw2K59x4&amp

It should be clear to anyone that such "social contract" is an illusion, invented to justify the unjustifiable.
You can't make a contract over something you don't legitimately own. And taking something by force, or building something using resources taken by force, isn't a legitimate way of owning anything. (and as that isn't enough, states attack whoever decides to compete with them in the same territory)

Governments would only be legitimate if they had been built voluntarily, with true contracts, since the beginning. And that's not the case for any state in this world, not even Monaco.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:11:41 PM
 #32

Spooner was wrong.  As we discussed earlier, you can own a dog but you don't have a right to set it on fire. 

Cute little furry rabbits aside, what part of Spooner's definition of property and ownership are you not in agreement with?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:14:03 PM
 #33

Spooner was wrong.  As we discussed earlier, you can own a dog but you don't have a right to set it on fire. 

Cute little furry rabbits aside, what part of Spooner's definition of property and ownership are you not in agreement with?

The part where he says you are entitled to torture and kill your pets.  Its a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:24:47 PM
 #34

The part where he says you are entitled to torture and kill your pets.  Its a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights.

What/where did you read that? I certainly didn't quote anything like that. Try again.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:36:03 PM
 #35

The part where he says you are entitled to torture and kill your pets.  Its a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights.

What/where did you read that? I certainly didn't quote anything like that. Try again.

I can't find the quote.  It was something along the lines of "If you own something, you can do as you please with it under natural law.." but I can't remember where I saw it Sad

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:56:13 PM
 #36

I can't find the quote.  It was something along the lines of "If you own something, you can do as you please with it under natural law.." but I can't remember where I saw it Sad

Why don't you just address what I quoted. It seems complete enough; at least within the context of theft, taxing, society, contract and property. Now try to justify your taxing entity. You can always find something somebody said that probably isn't perfectly spoken or written. Notwithstanding, that doesn't necessarily mean everything they said before or after that is a lie and untruthful. That would be just a teensy weensy bit harsh don't you think? I mean seriously, nobody's perfect.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 05:00:21 PM
 #37

I can't find the quote.  It was something along the lines of "If you own something, you can do as you please with it under natural law.." but I can't remember where I saw it Sad

Why don't you just address what I quoted. It seems complete enough; at least within the context of theft, taxing, society, contract and property. Now try to justify your taxing entity. You can always find something somebody said that probably isn't perfectly spoken or written. Notwithstanding, that doesn't necessarily mean everything they said before or after that is a lie and untruthful. That would be just a teensy weensy bit harsh don't you think? I mean seriously, nobody's perfect.

"As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

That is saying that you have the right to burn your dog and no-one has the right to stop you.  Which simply isn't true.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 05:09:12 PM
 #38

"As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

That is saying that you have the right to burn your dog and no-one has the right to stop you.  Which simply isn't true.

Can we just leave out the biological issue for the moment and focus on the inanimate object for a second? I love puppies too, so let's not go there just yet. Kapeesh?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 05:14:28 PM
 #39

"As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

That is saying that you have the right to burn your dog and no-one has the right to stop you.  Which simply isn't true.

Can we just leave out the biological issue for the moment and focus on the inanimate object for a second? I love puppies too, so let's not go there just yet. Kapeesh?

Is your house inanimate enough?  You own a house.  But if a road needs to pass through it, you lose ownership of the house.  Your ownership was a legal right until society decided that a greater good was at stake.

dustintrammell
VIP
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 05:38:09 PM
 #40

And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

18% (9% on income, 9% on consumption) is still way less than what I'm paying now in Federal income tax.  It may not be perfect, but at least it's a step in the right direction...
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!