Search the Community

you say taxation is theft. okay fine. then theft is a violation of the non aggression principle right? and you can respond to violations of the non aggression principle with self defense right? so, that means you can respond to taxation with self defense. so, if you don't agree to taxation, don't pay them and when they come for you, gun them down. its your duty as an anarchist. now i personally dont view tax as theft. i view it as the price i pay for living in a civilized society. i used to view it as theft until i thought this argument through. either i give up tax as theft, i give up theft as a violation of the non aggression principle, or i give up self defense as a response to violations of the non aggression principle, or i wager war on the government.

I just got a letter from the company that insure my car. They have given me a quote for another year of insurance. Their quote included the following sentence: Oh really?! There's a thing called "insurance premium tax" which I have apparently already been paying for via artificially increased insurance rates... and also... it has just been arbitrarily increased! * shakes head in disbelief * Amazing. So this is how it works: people in government decide they want more money to spend on things that they want. Those people in government then increase the amount of protection money they charge me (and the rest of us) so rather than me spend my money on what I want... they get to spend my money on what they want. This is how people want their society to be run? I will obviously being paying up because... it's not a request... it's a demand, backed by threat of extreme violence. Also: they target all companies that provide car insurance so there likely isn't even an option which doesn't involve... [looks back down at the quote]... "insurance premium tax". I've tried to explain to the sheeple that support this stuff that they are supporting and advocating theft on a grand scale. The sheeple invariably tell me (in an apparent attempt to rebut my claim) that "we need to be stolen from by the government because otherwise there would be chaos... and bad people would steal from us!" They actually, usually say "we need to be taxed", but I've got used to silently converting "taxed" to "stolen from" in my head because I'm not aware of any functional difference between the two words and propaganda makes my head hurt. They actually, also usually say "because there would be anarchy", but I've got used to silently converting "anarchy" to "chaos" in my head because it makes their insane statements just slightly less insane. It provides me a slightly less painful cranial experience. I guess this is just a rant. Hope you don't mind. I have literally no one in my life that understands and accepts this stuff.

I was listening to an old podcast about “how would we deal with … in the free society”, and then, this piece of news pops up (i.e. “we deal with theft so well now”)… http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/crown-suggests-four-year-prison-sentence-for-ex-quebec-vice-regal-thibault/article24567724/ Basically, this person pleaded guilty to defrauding government of $430K. But… she is a former Quebec lieutenant-governor (sort of like an appointed state governor). So, her punishment will likely be 12 mons of community service and have to repay $372K (no word on the $58K difference) with $272K coming from her foundation for disabled. Basically, they are going to force a bunch of handicapped people to pay for her theft. Figures.

About year ago I stumbled across a story that was so incredible that it was almost impossible to believe. When I asked myself the question "would the government really do that?", the answer was a clear and resounding "yes". It's a long story, but the introduction for newcomers must begin by reading the book "Gold Warriors - America's secret recovery of Yamashita's Gold". It's available here at the author's website http://www.bowstring.net, where you can also buy 1.5GB of additional material and evidence on 3 CDs. You can also buy it from Amazon and for the Kindle. [Full Disclosure: I have no association with Sterling or Peggy Seagrave, their website, nor any of the material they're written or produced. I'm simply a guy who read the story and was totally stunned how much real evidence of this conspiracy is readily available today, but basically no one knows about it.] In an effort to keep this post short I'll summarise as follows: If there was ever enough public awareness of the information revealed in this book, it would unmake the world. If all it took to destroy the world as we know it, was for the truth to see the light of day, then it is right that it should be destroyed. If this topic is of interest to people, I have a lot more information that I will post about. As I said, I've been researching this story for over a year now.

My roommate told me about this.. Last night someone who I consider to be an acquaintance and possible friend broke the law. He was with a group of other teenagers looking for booze and they ended up at a store and many stole liqueur. The police came and arrested many people, including him on the suspicion of stealing alcohol. It turned out that he only stole a sandwich, so he spent three hours in jail and was released and has a future court date. This wasn't the first time that he has committed theft. My roommate who is his friend told me of his other exploits. Amongst them was wearing baggy pants into Walmart and waiting for the "coast to be clear" to cross into the Walmart bathroom with alcohol and then tape the booze to the inside of the pant leggings and walk out of the store undetected. Deposit the loot into their vehicle and then go and go back and do that as many times as desired. I asked my roommate his age; 18, and if he would buy the alcohol rather than resorting to theft if he could legally. My roommate said that he would, and that gave me a sense of okayness about the ordeal. (Drugs shouldn't be illegal anyways, this kind of thought.) The sandwich is a different story, it is not illegal to buy sandwiches at any age and he also had enough money on him to make a purchase. My roommate is also a thief, he steals traffic cones and then takes the remaining ones and spaces them evenly. He currently has two cones in our room that he is using as decoration, and I admit it looks rad. I find that these do not bother me as much as it maybe should. Same with kleptocracy, our government farmers taking the fruits of our labors. That does not bother me as much as my government murdering people overseas, especially the signature drone strikes in Pakistan, resulting in the deaths of children who have nothing to do with terrorism. I think that my tolerance for theft is one of the reasons I am not fully on board with anarchy. I have some questions that I wish for people commenting bellow to answer: 1. Is theft a lesser of the three evils? (murder, rape, and theft) 2. What are some arguments other than UPB that find theft disagreeable? 3. Can a thief make a good friend, would you be friends with someone who you know steals?

So recently I got into a debate with a family member over taxation & welfare. I told him that taxation is theft & presented him with a comparison of a thief & government. He then kept saying that there is a difference between the two to which I replied no there isn't & he kept saying yes. While that family member has shown their highly irrational thought process what are some other approaches I could take in regards to convincing someone that taxation is theft.

Hi people, This post is about an aspect of the the book “Universally Preferable Behaviour , A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics ” (online here) written by our host Stefan. In the UPB book, it is argued that, since we own our bodies, we own our actions, so also the effects of actions, and therefore we own whatever we produce, such as a bow or a book. A homesteading theory or a theory of just acquisition is regarded as unnecessary to establish property rights. It would be preferable if it would indeed be that simple. But after thinking about it, it seems to me that there are some problems with it, which I will explain below. On page 75 of the UPB book, the ethical problem of theft is examined. I understand the argumentation as follows: I control my body I should control my body morally well (responsibility) I am allowed to control my body (ownership) I think the argumentation needs one extra qualification in order to be logically sound: I inherently control my body I should control my body morally well (responsibility) I am allowed to control my body (ownership) The responsibility to control something cannot be inferred from only the fact that we control something. For example, the government controls the economy, but it should not do so. But if we unavoidably (inherently) control something, then it can be inferred we should do so morally well. The reasoning is now valid because: 1. is obviously true 1.->2. is valid, assuming there is morality at all 2.->3. is valid, otherwise there would be an impossible moral obligation What has been said for our bodies, can also be said for our actions, and the effects of our actions, as far as we can predict them. Let us examine further what this actually means. We have control over what we will do next, because we can decide it. We control our future actions and the effects of those actions. Once we have acted, the effects of our actions materialize, and become a fixed part of history that we cannot control anymore. We are still responsible for past actions, because we have controlled it in the past. Responsibility can refer to both past and future moral obligations. But the right to control something now, cannot be automatically deduced from past obligations to control it. Besides, even if we had the right to control the effects of our past actions, it would be impossible to exercise it. We cannot control the effects of our past actions, any more than we can change history. We can only control the effects of our future actions. In the reasoning of the UPB book, the right to control the effects of our actions is based on our ability to control it. Theft, on the other hand, implies that we have lost control over it. To argue that we are allowed to control something, after we lost control over it, therefore needs another type of reasoning. Secondly, in the theory under study, the right to control something is based on our obligation to control it well (responsibility). If someone would let any of this type of possession be stolen, it would create the impossible moral obligation upon him to control that which he cannot control, which is of course absurd. In fact, stealing of this type of possession is logically impossible, because we have control over it by definition. For the reasons stated above, it seems to me that this type of reasoning is insufficient to establish property rights and handle the subject of theft. By the way, my argumentation is not intended to justify theft, but to get to a better theory of property rights. I think we need some type of homesteading theory to effectively proof property rights, or at least make them plausible. Looking forward to your comments. Best regards.

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net