I didn't pay capital gains tax on bitcoin sales to IRS today

[cinder]

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Food safety is the responsible of both consumer and producer. And national defense alone don't cost 30%+ income from everyone in the country.

[dscotese]

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Which argument did you mean?

The IRS lists several arguments that the Secretary has determined are frivolous.  My argument is not on there, and Hendrickson's site shows refund checks and other documents from the IRS demonstrating that this argument is actually correct.  Here it is:

"Taxable Income" can only mean what a person gets by exercising some kind of federal privilege, so those who exercise no such privilege are not liable for the tax.

You can find good answers to just about any rendering of the general question "If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would ____ be paid for?"  I'll give you a few links for the two items you used:

Food Safety: http://www.westonaprice.org/
National Defense: https://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

Generally, the things that are paid for with taxes fall into two classes.  The first class includes "National Defense": Problems created, invented, or imagined by governments in order to justify their publicly sanctioned privilege to violate citizens through taxation, fines, and incarceration.  The second class includes food safety: People generally pay for what they need, but if someone offers it to them "for free" and does a half-decent job at least in the beginning, then they will learn to expect it "for free" even when "for free" means "in return for being violated through taxation, fines, and incarceration," and continue in that expectation (as you seem to) even as that expectation tends to multiply the cost and diminish the quality.

You may uncover a problem that cannot be solved without a government that enforces tax laws against its citizens (in other words, steals from them under the color of law) in order to raise the revenue required to solve that problem.  At that point, you have to start asking whether you consider theft to be immoral, and if you do, then decide whether you can justify immoral behavior using the goal of that immoral behavior.  My answer is no, the end does not justify immorality, and therefore such a problem ought to remain unsolved until humanity finds a moral way to solve it.

Another simple answer to food safety concerns is this: Eat a little bit of anything new to see how it suits you, don't eat a lot of anything, and pay attention to your body and your health, and the reputation of the suppliers from whom you get your food.

[LostDutchman]

Survival is the ultimate monkey.

[Coin_Master]

If you choose to fight the law in court, you may do so, but you're guilty of breaking that law until the courts prove that the law is not valid.

Incorrect, you are not guilty of breaking the law until the court finds you guilty. (you missed the subtlety of it)

[kuusj98]

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Food safety is the responsible of both consumer and producer. And national defense alone don't cost 30%+ income from everyone in the country.

I don't live in the USA, but the immense oversized army the thing has can bring a man thinking where the money comes from, they could easely cut in such relatively unimportand matters, but who am I?

[boumalo]

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Food safety is the responsible of both consumer and producer. And national defense alone don't cost 30%+ income from everyone in the country.

I don't live in the USA, but the immense oversized army the thing has can bring a man thinking where the money comes from, they could easely cut in such relatively unimportand matters, but who am I?

You could make a long list of money spent badly and wasted for the average joe, the solution is to have a small government budget because you will have less power to sell so less occupation and less money to waste

[BIGbangTheory]

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Food safety is the responsible of both consumer and producer. And national defense alone don't cost 30%+ income from everyone in the country.

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

[Honourablequest]

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Food safety is the responsible of both consumer and producer. And national defense alone don't cost 30%+ income from everyone in the country.

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

Food safety rules and regulations are written to support big commercial farms and in turn target and burden family farmers especially regarding sustainable and organic farming, and thus reduce the availability of fresh, local food in our communities. The over-regulate rules cost farmers their profits and keep beginners from starting to farm.

[dscotese]

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile. 

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

[boumalo]

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile. 

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Food safety is the responsible of both consumer and producer. And national defense alone don't cost 30%+ income from everyone in the country.

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

Food safety rules and regulations are written to support big commercial farms and in turn target and burden family farmers especially regarding sustainable and organic farming, and thus reduce the availability of fresh, local food in our communities. The over-regulate rules cost farmers their profits and keep beginners from starting to farm.

Music to my hears

The vast majority of regulations are unnecessary, contre productive and/or implemented because of corruption or for an other bad reason; the more regulation you have the more difficult it is for the small companies and the newcomers that is why most big corporations love regulation and big government

[silverfuture]

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile. 

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Food safety is the responsible of both consumer and producer. And national defense alone don't cost 30%+ income from everyone in the country.

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

Food safety rules and regulations are written to support big commercial farms and in turn target and burden family farmers especially regarding sustainable and organic farming, and thus reduce the availability of fresh, local food in our communities. The over-regulate rules cost farmers their profits and keep beginners from starting to farm.

Music to my hears

The vast majority of regulations are unnecessary, contre productive and/or implemented because of corruption or for an other bad reason; the more regulation you have the more difficult it is for the small companies and the newcomers that is why most big corporations love regulation and big government

2012 Food Poisoning Statistics (National)

    Salmonella poisoning is the most common type of food poisoning. It causes 40 percent of food poisoning cases. There were 7,800 reported cases of Salmonella poisoning in 2012, with 33 deaths.
    Campylobacter, a type of bacteria that is spread through chicken and unpasteurized milk and cheese, is becoming more common. In 2012, 7,000 people were sickened by Campylobacter, and another six died.
    Vibrio infections – caused by contaminated seafood spread via warm sea water – have increased 43 percent. In 2012, there were 193 cases of Vibrio infections and six deaths.
    Approximately one in six Americans (48 million people) is sickened by foodborne illnesses every year, and about 3,000 die.
    Roughly 128,000 people are hospitalized annually for foodborne illnesses.

[LostDutchman]

If I wrote a nice little book about money laundering, suppose anyone would buy it?

[thriftshopping]

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile. 

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

I would argue that no one would even bother to try to figure out what is good and what is bad for consumers if it wasn't for food regulations. If businesses didn't need to worry about keeping customers safe then why bother?

[cryptoanarchist]

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

I would argue that no one would even bother to try to figure out what is good and what is bad for consumers if it wasn't for food regulations. If businesses didn't need to worry about keeping customers safe then why bother?
[/quote]

How old are you? Has anyone ever explained to you the psychological concept of "projection"??

[darkota]

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile. 

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

You have the be the most ignorant person I've ever seen. Please get some STATISTICS. Without those regulations that your anarchy mind finds annoying, half of us would be dead from disease, crime, etc etc. GROW UP.

[LostDutchman]

USD $97 sound OK for my book on money laundering?

It will be a good one.

[TheButterZone]

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile.  

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

You have the be the most ignorant person I've ever seen. Please get some STATISTICS. Without those regulations that your anarchy mind finds annoying, half of us would be dead from disease, crime, etc etc. GROW UP.

Without the regulations that our "anarchy minds find annoying", at best 170,000,000 innocent civilians would have died natural deaths in the 20th century instead of being "regulated" to death by their own governments, according to researchers.

[darkota]

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile.  

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

You have the be the most ignorant person I've ever seen. Please get some STATISTICS. Without those regulations that your anarchy mind finds annoying, half of us would be dead from disease, crime, etc etc. GROW UP.

Without the regulations that our "anarchy minds find annoying", at best 170,000,000 innocent civilians would have died natural deaths in the 20th century instead of being "regulated" to death by their own governments, according to researchers.

Im not saying governments dont do many stupid things, but they also do many good things which outway the stupid things....They provide Healthcare, Fixing/building roads, hospitals, schools, etc etc, providing a military, medicare, unemployment benefits, etc etc, and A lot of the things governments provide are Cheap or Free, even for those not paying taxes(obama even made it possible for illegal immigrants to get schooling etc)

So all you crazy anarchists are living in your own deluded reality. Without the government, this world(or country, USA) would be in total Chaos. Think before you guys make stupid comments like Ive seen in this thread.

[TheButterZone]

And there we have it, the ultimate conclusion of statists' arguments: defending the indefensible, GENOCIDE.

[Cicero2.0]

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile.  

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

You have the be the most ignorant person I've ever seen. Please get some STATISTICS. Without those regulations that your anarchy mind finds annoying, half of us would be dead from disease, crime, etc etc. GROW UP.

Without the regulations that our "anarchy minds find annoying", at best 170,000,000 innocent civilians would have died natural deaths in the 20th century instead of being "regulated" to death by their own governments, according to researchers.

Im not saying governments dont do many stupid things, but they also do many good things which outway the stupid things....They provide Healthcare, Fixing/building roads, hospitals, schools, etc etc, providing a military, medicare, unemployment benefits, etc etc, and A lot of the things governments provide are Cheap or Free, even for those not paying taxes(obama even made it possible for illegal immigrants to get schooling etc)

So all you crazy anarchists are living in your own deluded reality. Without the government, this world(or country, USA) would be in total Chaos. Think before you guys make stupid comments like Ive seen in this thread.

I am no anarchist, but the idea that we need government to do all of the stuff you list is simply not true. There are private buildings, roads, hospitals, schools, soldiers, health insurance, employment insurance and so on.