Just Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Discussed at work today. When I say all taxation is taxation w/out representation, blank stares abound. Anyone care to chime in
SXYFISH Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 What was the next line in the discussion, if there was any?
nathanm Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Steal $20 from everyone when they aren't looking and then announce an election to determine who decides how to spend the money. Then ask why everyone's so mad at you and why it's any different when the government does it. Cause…Reasons! The Constitution! Splunge!
Guest darkskyabove Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Speaking only as regards the U.S. Empire, technically, taxation is by representation. That is the system: people "vote" for representatives who are given the authority to vote by proxy. These "proxies" vote on taxes. Whether any particular individual votes for the "elected" representatives, agrees with the "votes" of said representatives, or votes at all, is another issue. (A quick scan of my post history will reveal where I stand on the "system". ) One of the problems I see is that "representative, limited government" may have worked fairly well when the population of the Empire was small, and the issues were simpler; or, not as far-reaching. A case could be made that without the growing centralization of power invested in the Federal government, we might have maintained a more manageable system of representation on the local level. At this point the issue is "moo..." (to quote a paragon of political philosophy: Joey Tribbiani ). It seems to me the stronger argument is that we are no longer represented at all. Focusing only on taxation misses so much of the abuse of power committed by the "state". Although, eliminating the power to tax sorely undermines, the ability to commit any other abuses. If taxation is the issue at hand, I would suggest presenting the argument that "taxation is theft". Googling (though, I use startpage.com) "taxation is theft" produces 1,019,676 results (0.22 seconds). That should be enough to get started. And, surprisingly, the second hit was from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/18/taxation-is-theft-so-why-do-americans-put-up-with-it/. This is not some "fringe" argument. It has been dissected for many years by respectable sources. If presenting the "taxation is theft" argument, be prepared for more than blank stares. Prepare for open hostility. A person who has supported the "system", for whatever reason, will, usually, be quite hostile to the idea that "they" have been complicit in evil. Tough pill to swallow, but the facts speak for themselves: support of taxation, in any form, is complicity in evil. Paying taxes, to avoid repercussion, without supporting the principle, is not the same. It is only those who vocalize support whom have anything to answer for.
Kawlinz Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 The guns in charge might say we are taxed by representation, but no one can represent me without my consent - therefore I have no representative. Taxation is by theft.
ribuck Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 Children and tourists pay sales tax but have no representation.
aFireInside Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 More like print-ation without representation. I dont even think taxes pay welfare off.
vze57564 Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Remember, at the end of the day, it's still a language game. Judge the "entity" by its actions not by the culturally Marxist labels.
Just Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 What was the next line in the discussion, if there was any? typical dillusion, and sentiment towards abstracts. Plus the dreaded "love it, or leave it". You can only be the beacon of courage for those who understand the mess they're in, everyone else essentially deserves the coercion and violence they've chosen to accept as reality. Well, maybe not deserves... but what do you say for people who choose to believe theft is productive? Love em or leave em. I leave One of the problems I see is that "representative, limited government" may have worked fairly well when the population of the Empire was small, and the issues were simpler; or, not as far-reaching. A case could be made that without the growing centralization of power invested in the Federal government, we might have maintained a more manageable system of representation on the local level. At this point the issue is "moo..." (to quote a paragon of political philosophy: Joey Tribbiani ). A manageable system on the local level has been the bane of existence for 2300ish years. Problem is... barbarians at the gates, and people always want security. Food, security, and freedom to be curious -- all compromised with barbarians at the gates. Which is always my biggest beef without a form of monopolized violence. Yea, yea im contradicting myself, but having an ACTUAL gun pointed at your head from someone who doesn't claim to be protecting you is worlds different from one who is claiming to protect you since no humanitarian concerns are relevant. So... I accept this taxation w/out representation so my kid can continue to find peace in the garden snakes and geese at my house - just as I did at his age
Recommended Posts