Counter to "Why Bitcoin is dropping ...buying." AMA format / doomsday debunked

[dinofelis]

...what is the difference between 10 maffia thugs putting you in a cage unless you pay them, or 10 000 state-paid thugs doing the same (but carrying a police uniform or the robe of a judge instead of a leather jacket)...

None.  That's why I'm going to come & live at your house, and won't pay you rent.  Because there's no difference between charging rent and mafia thuggery either.
Please remodel & hire some good help before I move in--I wouldn't want to put up with substandard services.

You renting my house is a mutually free agreement.  We both agree on that, or not.  I didn't say I didn't want to pay for state (or other) services.  I only want to be able to choose them.   My house is mine.  If you want to live there, and I agree that you live there, then we make a deal, and part of the deal is that you pay some rent.

Living in a country is a package deal.  Like renting a hotel room--you get charged for the pillow mints you didn't eat & the bed you haven't slept in.

The point is that "the country" is not the ownership of a state.  If it is, then I'm the state in my house and my garden, and when I'm at home, the state around me has nothing to do with me, because I'm then the owner of my house, and not the state, and my front door is a state border.  

However, I agree with you that using public services and infrastructure needs to be paid for.... on a voluntary basis !  If I want to USE a road, it is normal that I pay for it.  However, if I don't want to use a road, I don't see why I should *be obliged* to pay for it.  I might *choose* to step into a package deal that I pay for all roads, and that as such I also have the right to use them.  Whether I do or not will depend:
- on the price I'm charged (there's for instance no reason why the same service should be more expensive to me than to someone earning less than me)
- on the quality of the roads.

If I don't have this choice, then of course the state will build a lot of useless roads at too high prices for too low quality to give my tax money to their friends the road building companies held by their brother in law.  The only way to keep the ratio of quality, usefulness and efficiency in check with the spending is if there is the free choice to say no.  If not, we get exactly what is happening in almost all states: budgets running out of hand, rising taxation until the economy is strangled and a lot of spending on very low efficiency, bad quality and very costly stuff.

I know this, because I work with state money.  The more I waste, the more I spend, the better things go for me and my people.  At no point, any form of efficiency is demanded.  (on paper, yes, in reality, no).  I've had collegues who couldn't stand this going to the private sector, where they discovered all of a sudden that every Euro spent must be won too.  
Of course it is fun spending other people's money in truckloads.  But exactly because I know how it goes with tax money, I'm aware of the hypocrisy of the system and I want to keep wasting it because it is much more fun than having to earn it (and pay all those bastards like me wasting it on taxes).

Don't like the deal?  Go to a different hotel, or sleep in the gutter.  Give up your citizenship & GTFO like that petty criminal Ver (who is now whining that US won't give him an entry visa).

The state doesn't own the country.  The state should ideally (haha) be a servant to the country.  In reality, the state is a huge parasite of the country.  The country doesn't get any better with all the wasting of tax money.  The state does.  That is, the state and his brother in law.

[btc_n_economics]

Comon? You really believe a country that can create its own money out of nothing is a good thing? Why aren't other countries doing because "in and of itself" it's good? Hell, why doesn't some small nation just get to printing? --They can't do it because everything is tied to the exchange rate of their currency to the reserve currency (the USD). We are in control of it; we set the price. This really is my only point out of all of my writings for you to see and internalize. The US is in control. That's why every thing I am saying to you sounds wildly outrageous. You are part of those in control. You are seeing it from one side and because that side is in control, you think that is reality for everyone.

I think I get what you are saying here.  Sure, most of the time things are priced in USD.  Like EuroDolalr or YenDollar or whatever.  But people can just as easily talk about the EuroYen instead of the DollarYen when quoting prices.  This new country that just prints $ would see its FX decline in relation to all currencies, not just the USD.  Even BTC is quoted in dollars often but can also be quoted in EUR or whatever.  The reason that the USD is in control, as you say, is because well if I work in Indonesia or whatever and someone wants to pay me, I would much rather trust the USA than Vietnam or whatever so I would much rather you paid me in USD.  That's just because that country has good things going for it, there is nothing wrong with being preferred currency if that is the case.

I just don't agree that "we" set the price of these other things you reference.  The USD is not set by any one party.  Sure, the Fed has a lot of control over it because they control short-term interest rates, but there are so many other global factors that affect the value of the dollar that it is difficult for me to accept that our government controls it.  And even if they do - I just don't think it matters.  It only matters if you are doing business with the US, in which case other countries WANT our FX to be weaker so that they can sell us more stuff!  But in the long run it is inflation that affects the strength of a currency and this government has done a good job of keeping that in check.

Creating money out of nothing IS a good thing if that money is being used to invest in productive assets.  If a country prints its way into a fortune and has no economy, it is worthless.  But if a country prints a fortune and create unlimited, no-pollution portable power source or something crazy, that currency will be worth a lot.  It just depends.  And I think in this case the USD is doing well - they have the best tech industry, the best healthcare industry and a slew of other things going for them.  Sure, it could change tomorrow but that is speculation.  And having that argument is much different than saying the USD will be worth $0 in 100 years because it's much harder to think it through and say I think the US won't be competitive because of X or Y.  Those points can be argued but saying that it's screwed, well that's just an opinion.

[NotLambchop]

...what is the difference between 10 maffia thugs putting you in a cage unless you pay them, or 10 000 state-paid thugs doing the same (but carrying a police uniform or the robe of a judge instead of a leather jacket)...

None.  That's why I'm going to come & live at your house, and won't pay you rent.  Because there's no difference between charging rent and mafia thuggery either.
Please remodel & hire some good help before I move in--I wouldn't want to put up with substandard services.

You renting my house is a mutually free agreement.  We both agree on that, or not.  I didn't say I didn't want to pay for state (or other) services.  I only want to be able to choose them.   My house is mine.  If you want to live there, and I agree that you live there, then we make a deal, and part of the deal is that you pay some rent.

When did France agree to you living there without paying taxes?  I hope you saved the contract, because France tells me she didn't.

Living in a country is a package deal.  Like renting a hotel room--you get charged for the pillow mints you didn't eat & the bed you haven't slept in.

The point is that "the country" is not the ownership of a state.  If it is, then I'm the state in my house and my garden, and when I'm at home, the state around me has nothing to do with me, because I'm then the owner of my house, and not the state, and my front door is a state border.  

Not sure what the law in France is, but here in US the state doesn't "end" at my doorstep.  Owning a piece of real estate in US makes it "yours" in the same sense that owning an apartment in an apartment complex makes it yours.  It grants you some rights, but far from all.

You aren't allowed to breed cattle in your "own" apartment, for instance, and you need to pay building maintenance costs.  Not optional.  

Similarly, when you buy a piece of land in US, it's only "yours" as long as you pay your taxes, follow building & zoning codes, and comply with a bevy of other shit.
Oh, and if the jackbooted thugs ever need "your" land back, they can seize it via eminent domain.
Ownership is not quite as binary as you think it to be

... I work with state money.  The more I waste, the more I spend, the better things go for me and my people. ...

Stop wasting your government's money, or, as a minimum, stop bragging about it.  It's unscrupulous people such as yourself who drive up the taxes.
Stop being the problem and become the solution.

...The state doesn't own the country.  The state should ideally (haha) be a servant to the country.  In reality, the state is a huge parasite of the country.  The country doesn't get any better with all the wasting of tax money.  The state does.  That is, the state and his brother in law.

You certainly don't think *you* own the country, do you?   What is it you feel that you have done that made you deserve it?

[toknormal]

Bitcoin re-surfacing.

[3eme]

As long as the rest of the world believes that our government can tax citizens and pay interest on its debt, the international community will have a demand for dollars.  Demand for dollars is not only buying and selling of goods - most of the time it is transfer of US Treasurys, which act as cash equivalents.  So if people think they will get paid back on their UST, they will have no problem dealing with the US and holding our debt.  And this payments, we agree, will always be made.

And here is the problem. There are growing indications that the rest of the world does not think that, and other powerful countires (notably China) are trying to move away from the US dollar as a reserve currency. This is not unexpected - no currency has remained a reserve currency for much more than a century - and it's certainly not going to come without warning, but it's definitely going undermine the value of the US dollar and radically impact the US economy. Will there be a recession? Very probably. Will the US recover? Again, probably. Will there be an apocolypse? Highly doubtful.

It's actually not a problem at all.  Those countries have their own agendas and reasons for doing deals which are political in nature.  China and Russia doing deals on the side means nothing when the rest of the world is not following suit.  If you want to see if people believe in the ability of the US to tax, look at the USD at ten year highs, look at US Treasury yields approaching multi-decade lows.. your assertion that people are losing faith is based on no facts, you are ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.  Let's just say you are right and the US loses it's status.. who is it going to go to?  China with their fabricated economy that no one has faith in?  Or Europe which is teetering on collapse?  There is no one else.  Full stop.  Period.  Besides even if it does happen, that is not a kiss of death.  Great Britain was just fine after they lost reserve status, their economy did not collapse and the world kept spinning.  I'll tell you one thing, it sure as heck won't be Russia or Brazil or China accepting BTC for their goods and services.

Let's step back and ignore what the market is telling you and also put aside our theories for a second and think:  why on Earth would the US all of a sudden not be able to tax its citizens and pay interest on its debt?  That is the fundamental question.  We have a powerful military to protect us, we have one of the best economies in the world and we have the best legal system in the world.  There are no rational or logical reasons to think that the US is on the decline or the dollar is doomed or anything close to that.  And looking at interest rates and FX strength you can see the world does agree with that statement.

Quouting the above, The US dollar loses its status as the reserve currency, the question is not who it goes to but what it goes to, look at what all the central banks hold as their reserve assets, the dollar and GOLD! There does not need to be one country with a reserve currency, there is already a backup in place and all the central banks of the world hold it already. Its not going to be game over for the US once it loses its reserve status, after the dust settles I expect they will bounce back as a manufacturing powerhouse and will remain a preeminant world power, it is an incredible and dynamic place.

Consider that China has been buying treasuries throughout this past decade, this is what has given support to the dollar all this time but they have now stopped and started acquiring gold. If the dots havent connected for you yet, well they bumped off Gaddafi after he threatened to sell oil for gold didnt they?

[B.A.S.]

Comon? You really believe a country that can create its own money out of nothing is a good thing? Why aren't other countries doing because "in and of itself" it's good? Hell, why doesn't some small nation just get to printing? --They can't do it because everything is tied to the exchange rate of their currency to the reserve currency (the USD). We are in control of it; we set the price. This really is my only point out of all of my writings for you to see and internalize. The US is in control. That's why every thing I am saying to you sounds wildly outrageous. You are part of those in control. You are seeing it from one side and because that side is in control, you think that is reality for everyone.

I think I get what you are saying here.  Sure, most of the time things are priced in USD.  Like EuroDolalr or YenDollar or whatever.  But people can just as easily talk about the EuroYen instead of the DollarYen when quoting prices.  This new country that just prints $ would see its FX decline in relation to all currencies, not just the USD.  Even BTC is quoted in dollars often but can also be quoted in EUR or whatever.  The reason that the USD is in control, as you say, is because well if I work in Indonesia or whatever and someone wants to pay me, I would much rather trust the USA than Vietnam or whatever so I would much rather you paid me in USD.  That's just because that country has good things going for it, there is nothing wrong with being preferred currency if that is the case.

I just don't agree that "we" set the price of these other things you reference.  The USD is not set by any one party.  Sure, the Fed has a lot of control over it because they control short-term interest rates, but there are so many other global factors that affect the value of the dollar that it is difficult for me to accept that our government controls it.  And even if they do - I just don't think it matters.  It only matters if you are doing business with the US, in which case other countries WANT our FX to be weaker so that they can sell us more stuff!  But in the long run it is inflation that affects the strength of a currency and this government has done a good job of keeping that in check.

Creating money out of nothing IS a good thing if that money is being used to invest in productive assets.  If a country prints its way into a fortune and has no economy, it is worthless.  But if a country prints a fortune and create unlimited, no-pollution portable power source or something crazy, that currency will be worth a lot.  It just depends.  And I think in this case the USD is doing well - they have the best tech industry, the best healthcare industry and a slew of other things going for them.  Sure, it could change tomorrow but that is speculation.  And having that argument is much different than saying the USD will be worth $0 in 100 years because it's much harder to think it through and say I think the US won't be competitive because of X or Y.  Those points can be argued but saying that it's screwed, well that's just an opinion.

"It only matters if you are doing business with the US, in which case other countries WANT our FX to be weaker so that they can sell us more stuff!"

--Now you get it. The US is a major importer. Other countries want them to buy their stuff, but when the country that is selling to the US wants to do some growing of its own what happens? Well, their currency isn't worth shit globally even though they are selling the US massive loads of stuff. So they go to the US for a nice credit line and a favorable exchange rate only to find that the rate has teetered once again in favor of the US dollar. It is no coincidence.

"If a country prints its way into a fortune and has no economy, it is worthless."

-- I agree completely. Problem is this is essentially what is happening in the US right now because its only economy is exporting dollars. Financial transactions are the leading "product" produced. Yes, the US makes things, but not nearly on the scale it used to.

"But if a country prints a fortune and create unlimited, no-pollution portable power source or something crazy, that currency will be worth a lot."

-- This would be great, but why go through all that trouble as a country if you could command power over what currency that power source was designed and built with? Have someone else do it using your money which you control.


The US and their currency is not going anywhere. Same with other countries as well. What will change I predict is how foreign countries trade with each other. I believe in the future, all global trading will be done with a unified currency ("The World Dollar" or whatever you want to call it). Countries will exchange their respective currencies into "The World Dollar." Trades will be made using this World Dollar and upon completed transaction, those World Dollars will be immediately exchanged back into the denomination they originally were.

USD --> World Dollar  (Make trades globally)

World Dollar --> USD (Profit or Losses from global trades)

The world dollar serves as the "exchange rate" so no longer does USD/YUAN at (Example--$1.50:1 yuan) show up when the US strikes a deal with the China for instance.

[dinofelis]

When did France agree to you living there without paying taxes?  I hope you saved the contract, because France tells me she didn't.

Since I live on tax payer money :-)

Ok, they give me some, and take some back, but I live net, partly, on the French (and partly on British, and German, and ...) taxpayer's hard-earned money :-)

Before, I produced wealth and earned money.  But states took a big part of that away and I didn't want to be in slavery.  Now, I'm on the other side of the fence, where I produce almost nothing (of any value on the market), and live good on other people's stolen production.  I don't really think that is good, but it is better to steal, than to be stolen.  Given that in a pseudo-communist system, it is one or the other, and there is no fair earning what you produce, it is better to be on the state's theft side.  So that's what I do.

However, your point is a logical fallacy.  You compared "paying taxes" to "paying rent when you live in a house".  I pointed out to you where that comparison fails:
1) living in a house for rent is a mutual agreement, while paying taxes isn't.
2) living "on earth" (so, in a country) is not the same thing as "living in a house" because earth is not a produced good that belongs to someone, contrarily to a house.  Living on earth is a natural state of affairs, like breathing the air is.  For many reasons, the country is not owned by a bunch of people calling themselves a state, no more than the air in the forrest is my property and no more than I could ask money for somebody who is breathing.
Only the result of production can ideally be owned.  Public land is public, and not owned by anybody, including the state.
I agree with you that USING INFRASTRUCTURE is something else, and should be paid for, on a voluntary basis, in order to be allowed to use it (such as a rented house, or a road).  But that's not the same thing as "being in a country".

Of course, actual states don't apply those rules, because they are maffia thugs.  But it is not because they are maffia thugs that that is a good thing, or should be wanted for.
In the good old CCCP, many things also happened, enforced by the state, that you may not find OK.  So it is not because a state can enforce things, that things SHOULD be that way, and that you should find that logical or normal.  Your parents fled from the CCCP exactly for those reasons.  It is a bit strange that you do not understand that yourself.

[dinofelis]

Stop wasting your government's money, or, as a minimum, stop bragging about it.  It's unscrupulous people such as yourself who drive up the taxes.
Stop being the problem and become the solution.

But there's nothing else in a state.  It is the definition of a state.  The day that you will understand that, a lot will clear out for you.  The state is nothing else but people like me, wasting taxpayer's money.  The only reason why they do SOMETIMES something that appears useful to the public, is to keep people like you cheering for paying taxes.  But the state is nothing else but a self-propagating bunch of bastards like me, who produce essentially nothing useful, on mountains of taxpayer's money, and live well off the production of others.  I agree however, that I'm pretty rare in being open and honest about that.  Many of my fellow spenders of taxpayer's money are on top of that deluded (or pretend to be so) and have a high esteem of their wasting practices.
It is the definition of a parasite.  Sometimes, by accident, it also does something useful.

[dinofelis]

Creating money out of nothing IS a good thing if that money is being used to invest in productive assets.

This is a strange (Keynesian) statement, isn't it ?
Investing means to give up consumption in order to use resources to make capital (that is, means of production).  Indeed, certain resources available could be used to consume, OR they could be used to make capital, but not both.  They could also be wasted of course, but what is impossible is to consume and make capital with the same resource.  If you want to "consume time" (that is, if you want to have free time), you cannot use that time simultaneously to produce labor.  If you want to consume electricity for playing a video game, you cannot use that same electricity to make a machine that will build a car for instance.  You can only use a resource once, and it can be 1) wasted, 2) consumed 3) invested (that is, turned into a capital good).

There's no way in which "printing money" can invent resources that can be turned into capital, without not having them consumed or wasted.  This is why "printing money" or any other Keynesian technique doesn't really work in the long run: because resources cannot be double-spend in consumption AND in capital.
Of course, what printing money can do, is to take away resources from some and give them to others.  Whether that transfer of resources improves the economical structure or not is an open debate.  Usually, if the one spending has no choice over on what it is spend, and if the one receiving didn't have to earn it, wasting resources is probable, so usually, taking away resources from some, to give it "for free" to others is wasteful (because you are usually more careful with resources you had to earn, than with things received "for free" and taken from others).

Ideally, the decision not to consume, but to invest, is what is called "saving" and happens ideally with a "sound money" (that is, money that doesn't inflate its basis).  Then, the balance is clear: people earning money (in return for produced value) who do not want to consume this, put the money aside as a saving, and this can be lend out to people wanting to invest.  With sound money, the amount not spend on consumption is then equal to what is available for investment, as it should be.  The interest paid on the borrowed money is then ideally equal to the value of the capital in the new production and is the incentive for the saver to save. 
All printing of money is distorting these balances.

[rebuilder]

A government does not create land any more than you get your rights from a government.

Sorry to nitpick, but I was a bit perplexed by this. How does one have rights not granted by some ruling body? Rights are what subjects have. Freedom is what sovereigns have, in theory of course.

[dinofelis]

A government does not create land any more than you get your rights from a government.

Sorry to nitpick, but I was a bit perplexed by this. How does one have rights not granted by some ruling body? Rights are what subjects have. Freedom is what sovereigns have, in theory of course.

This is a feudal view on things.  Normally, people are not "subjects" but are in principle free.  They should be free to work together and organize them into bigger structures (like "states") if they want to, on their own free choice.  States should be subject to people, and people shouldn't be subject to states.  I know that this is not how things worked out the last 5 millennia or so, but that is exactly why states are thugs, submitting people to their will by using their violence.  As I said before, it is not because things are different than what they could be, that we should necessarily cheer for the way they are now.

Indirect democracy didn't submit states to the people, that is just a pipe dream.  It did improve a bit the situation over the established absolute monarchy, but not much.  We can only change the absolute monarchy every few years.  That did bring some softening, but didn't solve the fundamental problem you pointed out: that people are still subject to states instead of the other way around.

[Elwar]

A government does not create land any more than you get your rights from a government.

Sorry to nitpick, but I was a bit perplexed by this. How does one have rights not granted by some ruling body? Rights are what subjects have. Freedom is what sovereigns have, in theory of course.

Your right to freedom is granted the day you are born. From there, it is all about defending that right.

Your right to free speech is not something the government gives you. You have the right to free speech simply by being alive. The government is just saying that they are being ever so courteous as to not interfere with that particular freedom.

The government takes away your freedoms and leaves you with your remaining "rights".

[Wekkel]

I agree however, that I'm pretty rare in being open and honest about that.

For most people, the truth ain't an option.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

Winston Churchill

[B.A.S.]

That's the problem with being a citizen--

The state (or law or government) bestows to you your rights and duties in that particular land. I agree with Elwar in theory, but wherever you end up being born, some governing body has been there long before your birth and will subject you to its desires.

As Elwar said, it's all about defending your rights. In the US this could mean protesting. In Somalia, this could mean shedding blood.

[NotLambchop]

When did France agree to you living there without paying taxes?  I hope you saved the contract, because France tells me she didn't.

Since I live on tax payer money :-)

Ok, they give me some, and take some back, but I live net, partly, on the French (and partly on British, and German, and ...) taxpayer's hard-earned money :-)

Before, I produced wealth and earned money.  But states took a big part of that away and I didn't want to be in slavery.  Now, I'm on the other side of the fence, where I produce almost nothing (of any value on the market), and live good on other people's stolen production.  I don't really think that is good, but it is better to steal, than to be stolen.  Given that in a pseudo-communist system, it is one or the other, and there is no fair earning what you produce, it is better to be on the state's theft side.  So that's what I do.

However, your point is a logical fallacy.  You compared "paying taxes" to "paying rent when you live in a house".  I pointed out to you where that comparison fails:
1) living in a house for rent is a mutual agreement, while paying taxes isn't.

No.  France has never agreed to you your living there without paying taxes.  If you were born at my house, would you feel entitled to live at my house for the rest of your life?  Do you feel that you have a right to live in the maternity ward of the hospital where you were born for free?  How is that different from living in France without paying for it?

2) living "on earth" (so, in a country) is not the same thing as "living in a house" because earth is not a produced good that belongs to someone, contrarily to a house.  Living on earth is a natural state of affairs, like breathing the air is.  For many reasons, the country is not owned by a bunch of people calling themselves a state, no more than the air in the forrest is my property and no more than I could ask money for somebody who is breathing.
Only the result of production can ideally be owned.

Then owning a piece of land is a crime against nature.  It is as repugnant as owning the air above that land.  In short, GET OFF MY LAWN, capitalist imperialist running dog pig

[B.A.S.]

When did France agree to you living there without paying taxes?  I hope you saved the contract, because France tells me she didn't.

Since I live on tax payer money :-)

Ok, they give me some, and take some back, but I live net, partly, on the French (and partly on British, and German, and ...) taxpayer's hard-earned money :-)

Before, I produced wealth and earned money.  But states took a big part of that away and I didn't want to be in slavery.  Now, I'm on the other side of the fence, where I produce almost nothing (of any value on the market), and live good on other people's stolen production.  I don't really think that is good, but it is better to steal, than to be stolen.  Given that in a pseudo-communist system, it is one or the other, and there is no fair earning what you produce, it is better to be on the state's theft side.  So that's what I do.

However, your point is a logical fallacy.  You compared "paying taxes" to "paying rent when you live in a house".  I pointed out to you where that comparison fails:
1) living in a house for rent is a mutual agreement, while paying taxes isn't.

Speaking about the US:

1) Forced taxation of its citizen is unconstitutional, i.e. in the US, it is illegal for the government to force its citizens to pay taxes just because they are in the US.

2) However, the law states that all citizens must file a tax return. It is illegal to not file a tax return, i.e. all citizens are forced to file a return.

3) In effect, failure to file is illegal (punished constitutionally) in order to in force taxation (unconstitutionally).

[NotLambchop]

...
Speaking about the US:

1) Forced taxation of its citizen is in and of itself unconstitutional, i.e. in the US, it is illegal for the government to force its citizens to pay taxes just because they are in the US.

No.
 

2) However, the law states that all citizens must file a tax return. It is illegal to not file a tax return, i.e. all citizens are forced to file a return.

3) In effect, failure to file is illegal (punished constitutionally) in order to in force taxation (unconstitutionally).

Stop listening to batshit crazies from the intertubes.  Do you really think you're the first to think of "it's unconstitutional" argument, snowflake?

[B.A.S.]

...
Speaking about the US:

1) Forced taxation of its citizen is in and of itself unconstitutional, i.e. in the US, it is illegal for the government to force its citizens to pay taxes just because they are in the US.

No.
 

2) However, the law states that all citizens must file a tax return. It is illegal to not file a tax return, i.e. all citizens are forced to file a return.

3) In effect, failure to file is illegal (punished constitutionally) in order to in force taxation (unconstitutionally).

Stop listening to batshit crazies from the intertubes.  Do you really think you're the first to think of "it's unconstitutional" argument, snowflake?

I wasn't arguing about whether it is a right or wrong policy or that I was the first to think of it. No special snowflake status for me. I was just conveying how laws are organized around certain issues. I did not get my statements from the intertubes, I got them from Supreme Court Case Florida v. United States regarding the ability to file income taxes as voluntary, i.e. the government doesn't have to do it on your behalf, it gives the citizen the right to do it.

Taxation is NOT voluntary in the US unless in criminal situations and other special cases. I didn't say this. I said forced taxation is unconstitutional, i.e. using force. You don't go to jail for not paying your taxes. You go to jail for failure to file your tax return, for lying on your forms, etc. This is how the government gets around using actual force. It made it voluntary to file income tax, i.e. gave the responsibility to its citizens. In effect, the government provided the rope to which its citizens voluntarily hang themselves.

[dinofelis]

No.  France has never agreed to you your living there without paying taxes. 

The point is that if you live on taxpayer's money, you don't ACTUALLY pay taxes. Of course I do file my tax declaration, and of course I "pay taxes".  But this is just taxpayer's money that was given to me and of which I return a part.  I just got less taxpayer's money than is noted on my salary.  Nevertheless, I get NET money FROM taxpayers.  That the state gives me some more, and then I have to return a part, is not really "paying taxes".  It is receiving less tax money.

If I give you $1000,- and I ask you back $200,-, I still gave you $800,-, right ?  You can't really say that you GAVE me $200,-, right ?

However, if you earn ON YOUR OWN by producing useful stuff for others, $1000,-, and then I ask you $200,-, then you REALLY gave me $200,-.  Of your hard-earned $1000,-, I took away $200,- from you.

See the difference ?

If there are 10 times more people producing stuff on their own, then I (as the state) will get 10 times more out of you.  However, if there are 10 times more dudes like me living off the state, and they pay each of them $1000,- to get back $200,-, this will COST the state 10 times more !

If you were born at my house, would you feel entitled to live at my house for the rest of your life?  Do you feel that you have a right to live in the maternity ward of the hospital where you were born for free?  How is that different from living in France without paying for it?

That's infrastructure, right ?

Then owning a piece of land is a crime against nature.  It is as repugnant as owning the air above that land.  In short, GET OFF MY LAWN, capitalist imperialist running dog pig

Indeed, owning land is an aberration.   It is as ridiculous as owning sea.  When USING natural resources, whether it is land, or minerals or whatever, ideally, this should be lend to the highest bidder for a certain lapse of time, and the bid should be the replacement for compulsory taxation: you BORROW land from the state at the bid you are willing to offer, on terms you agreed to.  In return for that, you get protection of your right to use that land exclusively for the time agreed upon.
Land that is not borrowed, can then be used by anybody, but no enforcement of any "property" can be asked from the state.  So you can build a house there, but someone else can then decide to live there.  If you don't want that, and you want to have exclusivity to access to land, you have to bid for it, and become the highest bidder, for the period you want to have your exclusive access to that land.  During that time, you can build a house there, and ask the state to have your exclusivity of access enforced.  After the end of that period, the land becomes public again, and your house that you put on it, too.  Until you, or someone else, makes a highest bid on it again.
The state should be financed exclusively with the income from those bids.
Because natural resources belong to everybody and to nobody, and wanting their exclusivity must be paid for whatever you are willing to put on the table for it.
On the other hand, produced goods are property of individuals.

This makes that the state gets an income based upon the bids for natural resources, and no taxation is necessary.  The state has to handle its stuff with its income.

[NotLambchop]

^@B.A.S: Which Florida vs United states are you talking about?  If you ever read case law, you'd know there's a shitton of them