Robert Copcutt wrote:
> YouDontOwnMe wrote:
>> Robert Copcutt wrote:
>
>>> Traveling outside the USA would probably help show you the errors in
>>> your conclusions.
>>
>> My conclusion is that the end does NOT justify the means.
>>
>> With the exception of the poster "OK", EVERY one of you who have
>> replied to this off topic post so far, IS arguing that the end
>> justifies the means.
>>
>> Are you going to argue that the end DOES justify the means?
>>
>> Are you saying that if I travel outside the USA I'll be able to see
>> the end justifies the means?
>>
>
> My observation is that people who have not traveled much tend to be
> narrow minded. You said things that hinted to me that you have never
> left the USA. Am I wrong?
I notice you avoided my question. Are you saying the end justifies the
means?
As to your question. I've left the country, not the continent. And I
understand full well the point you want to drive at. I HAVE traveled
MUCH. I've seen the narrowmindedness to which you infer. The
homogenization of the USA does not exist.
I didn't understand it the first time I heard it. I Southerner referred
to the American Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. Now I
embrace it as a statement of truth. A truth that is not presented in the
government indoctrination centers, er, the public schools. Truly,
history is written by the victors. I notice that Neon John's sigfile
says he from Tellico Plains, Occupied TN. Occupied Tennessee, as in
occupied Iraq and occupied Afghanistan. But I digress.
I notice you avoided my question. Are you saying the end justifies the
means? Oh... I asked that already.
>>
>>
>> > Reading quality text when you find it rather than just
>> > scanning it would also help.
>>
>> Are you referring to your writing or the poem you copied?
>>
> Primarily the poem although it is more accurately described as a
> receiving. Copied is not a good word either. I have the author's
> permission to put it on my site.
>
>> The poem - not worth the time, hence the request for you to direct my
>> attention to the point you are attempting to make with it. In scanning
>> it, I found nothing that applied to what you posted. It was a non
>> sequitur. That's not to say I won't go back and actually read it in
>> it's entirety at a later date, because I do like to read for its own
>> sake.
>>
>
> I pointed you to it because the whole thing is relevant to the sort of
> things you seem to be interested in. It has profound meaning and until
> you take the time to study it you are denying yourself an education.
I paid it more heed. I even had several paragraphs written. I deleted
them. You almost had me chasing your distraction. There are unchallenged
assumptions in that "receiving". I'm not challenging them, other than
"Man was sent to earth with two tasks: To use the short opportunity of
free will"... Free will that is violated EVERY time the State extorts
man's property from him via taxation.
>> I can sum up YOUR writing in 4 words for the purpose of my posts: You
>> "believe" in taxation.
>>
>
> I believe that if we live in a society we have a responsibility to spend
> some of our effort doing things that benefit the whole society.
I've donated web space to a local boy scout unit for their purposes.
Their concepts on "Citizenship" are greatly in error, thus I have a
serious conflict of interest. Even so, the rest of the program in
general does help develop good qualities in the youth involved, so I
help out as I can.
Good Citizenship starts with "do your fellow citizen no harm." A concept
that is violated EVERY time the State (misnomered a.k.a. 'government')
is involved.
> In
> principle tax is one reasonable way to collect a contribution.
Taxation is extortion.
You are arguing the end justifies the means again. You are arguing "In
principle extortion is one reasonable way to collect a contribution."
Tell me please, what is the difference between an armed robber in an
alleyway saying "give me your money or I'll hurt you" and a tax
collector saying "give me your money or I'll hurt you"?
> We both
> agree that the way tax is, and has been, collected is frequently unjust.
Taxation is extortion. You keep ignoring the point. You want to
immediately get the topic on what to do with the extorted funds.
Taxation is inherently unjust because it relies on extortion to achieve
its ends.
> If you want taxation to stop it would help if you proposed an
> alternative way to get societies to function. That would take a whole
> website and that is why I have created one.
Adam Smith's hidden hand works just fine to feed 8 million New Yorkers.
NYC doesn't have, and doesn't need, a ministry of food importation to
make society organized to feed the New Yorkers. Hunt's point - Been
there, done that. Somehow, in all that chaos, the food gets to their plates.
You've used two terms that I'm classifying as vague: Society and
function. As the poster "OK" said in a reply to one of your posts:
For any service you can name, there is a way to do
it with user fees and/or volunteerism rather than
taxation. People who use services pay for services.
People who believe services are important,
contribute to them with their time and/or money.
"But what if an essential service doesn't have
enough volunteers/donations/user fees to operate?" you
might ask. The answer is simple. If individuals, in
the aggregate, don't care enough about a service to
support it, how can it be "essential?"
> By being anonymous you have
> painted yourself into a corner as far as this thread is concerned.
Non sequitur. Unsupported assertion. Non compos mentis even. Cognitive
dissonance is like that. I notice you snipped the description of
cognitive dissonance completely out of your reply.
My identity label has nothing to do with my words... Except for the one
I choose to presently post under, which itself is a message and ground
zero for my concepts. Truth in advertising.
>> "Taxation" is "extortion".
>>
>
> It can be but I say again; propose a workable alternative.
It IS. Do not pass go, do not collect 200. Taxation is extortion. EVERY
TIME. Give us the money we demand, or we will hurt you.
"It can be BUT..."
but conj. 1. On the contrary.
The use of the word "but" or the word "however" erase the preceding
words, comments, concepts. Mr. Copcutt, you seem to be a very
intelligent person, but... (Insulting, isn't it? Not so subtle when
pointed out eh?)
Taxation can be extortion, but...
Sorry Mr. Copcutt, you don't get a bye on this one.
You are challenging me to propose a workable alternative to extortion.
<irony> But... </irony> you don't want me to focus on the extortion.
On an intellectual level, the challenge is intriguing, <irony> but...
</irony> I'm not biting at this time. This extortion is accepted without
critical thinking even by fellows as intelligent as you are. There are
belief systems in place that must be exposed, challenged, and done away
with, to clear one's mind to make room for the possibilities and
solutions. Until those belief systems are wiped, the beliefs will also
taint the perceptions as to what the problem to be solved actually is.
>
>> To prove my accusation I need only prove that "taxation" is "extortion".
>>
> No need. I already agree that the way it is done presently is frequently
> extortionate.
Not frequently. Always. Give us your money or we will hurt you.
> I am taking the trouble to respond because I am interested
> in a viable alternative. Propose one and I might listen.
Start by re-defining the problem to be solved. Before that, an
understanding of what and how the "problem" is presently defined needs
to be examined. I'm following you on this trail only because you have
minutely mollified me in regard to the issue that taxation is extortion.
>> It will be far easier for me to get a blind man to read my posts, a
>> deaf man to listen to me, and a paraplegic to walk with me, than to
>> get past the cognitive dissonance my assertion and subsequent
>> accusation is going to fire up.
>>
> The following is a rather shallow explanation but its a start
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_ (psychology)
> Thought forms are also mirrored. You see problems in others that you
> yourself have.
<chuckle>!</chuckle>
I'm sure you believe that. If it helps you to believe I have cognitive
dissonance, thats fine too. I'll just keep identifying when you post
non-sequiturs. We don't need to discuss the probability of cognitive
dissonance flaring up in you when said non-sequiters are posted.
By the way, I consciously use mirroring when I post. It's a subtle,
deliberate sarcasm when I do it.
>> You "believe" in taxation. You "believe" 'taxation is for good
>> purpose'. You "believe" 'taxation is good'.
>>
>>
>> "Taxation" is "extortion".
>>
>> Instant cognitive dissonance, just add proof.
>>
> No, I believe.
> 1) Money is needed to organise society. Tax is the best way found so far
> to collect it.
Nobody organizes the transport of food to the island of Manhattan to
feed the 8 million residents of the area, yet somehow it gets there.
Your term "organise society" is vague.
"[Extortion] is the best way found so far" to do this vague thing,
"organise society"
> 2) The collection process is now often extortionate. A better collection
> system is therefore needed. That is why I wrote my carbon tax page about
> making the only tax a "limited resources tax". Therefore we only pay for
> what we take from society or the planet.
The collection process IS extortionate. Give us this property we demand
or we will hurt you. ALL taxation, ALL law, is based upon do what we
tell you or we will hurt you.
A better collection system is needed for the vague purpose of organizing
society?
While I agree with you that the planet is in a world of hurt (pun not
intended), it doesn't justify enslaving humans to correct it.
Viable alternatives you said above? Okay. Are you going to defecate on
your dinner plate? Do you know anybody who would? Are you going to
urinate in your drinking water?
The issue is when people don't see the linkage between their actions and
crapping where it gets back on their dinner plates. Education is the
answer. And you know it, because that is what you are attempting to do
with your web site. Likewise, that is the purpose of my web site on its
topics. No, I don't care to show it. It's more USA oriented right now
anyway.
>>
>> I want you to explain what the UK will do to somebody who refuses to
>> pay a tax.
>>
> You know that force will be used.
Exactly. "Force will be used."
What force will be used to accomplish "Give us your money or we will
hurt you"?
> There are always people who will try
> to be parasites on society and people need to see that such behaviour is
> not tolerated.
Yes. So when a parasite, er, tax collector says "Give us your money or
we will hurt you", people need to see that such behavior is not
tolerated. Now you know why I'm posting as I am.
> Likewise I personally have a right to use force if it is
> the only to stop someone robbing me.
"Give us your money or we will hurt you" IS robbery, so as you have
agreed, I personally have the right to use force to stop such robbery.
> Not paying your tax is the same as
> robbing society.
Unsupported assertion. Statement of your "belief".
Taxation is extortion.
Not paying extortion is robbing society? Non-sequitur.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You write that tax is supposed to be a way of leveling the playing
>>>> field. Do you believe people should be forced to contribute to
>>>> charity at the barrel of a gun?
>>>
>>> Not at the barrel of a gun, but coercion to help others is essential.
>>
>> You contradict yourself and don't even recognize it.
>>
>
> My point was that guns are not required.
Above, I asked:
I want you to explain what the UK will do to somebody
who refuses to pay a tax.
You answered:
You know that force will be used.
What force will be used?
If I resist that force, what force will be used next?
>>
>> So lets do an Einstein "thought experiment".
>>
>> I possess the fruits of my labor. I have 200 euros. My neighbor does
>> not have as many euros as I do. My neighbor only has 100 euros.
>>
>> You believe I should be taxed to level the playing field. You believe
>> MY 50 euros should be taken from me and given to my neighbor so we
>> both have 150 euros.
>>
Replacing what you chopped, so what you are ignoring is on the table:
I refuse to relinquish those 50 euros to the State.
What is the State going to do?
Will the State do what States have done from time
immemorial?
> I do not have the time to write perfect replies to you.
Non sequitur. Cognitive dissonance?
Translation: I don't want to answer the questions you're asking because
I'm starting to see where you are leading me, (especially if you've read
my reply to Melodie in France). I don't want to go there. So I'll just
chop the questions out of the post and hope you don't notice. Then I'll
make a glib comment about not having time to write perfect replies to you.
> Levelling does
> not mean make perfectly level.
Irrelevant detailing distraction.
> That would be silly. Again, the receiving
> speaks about this. Those of us who can earn good money have a duty to
> give a proportion of our time or money to help those who are less
> fortunate.
Have you ever read Robert A. Heinlein?
He said it so well:
Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of
you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe
to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed
voluntarily.
Paying that debt can entail anything from years of
patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult
it may be, but the reward is self-respect.
But there is no reward at all for doing what other
people expect of you, and to do so is not merely
difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a
footpad than it is with the leech who wants "just a few
minutes of your time, please — this won't take long."
Or "just a few euros of your money, please - this won't take much."
Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your
life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall
into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they
quickly snowball to the point where these parasites
will use up 100 percent of your time — and squawk for
more!
So learn to say No — and to be rude about it when
necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry
out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no
time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble
away your life and leave none of it for you.
(This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor
for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be
yours. Don't do it because it is "expected" of you.)
And to that I add: Do not confuse "duty" with what other people will use
violence against you to make you do.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You write that those who are fit and strong have a duty to those who
>>>> are not. Do you believe fit and strong people should be forced to
>>>> help those not fit and strong at the barrel of a gun.
>>>
>>> The USA gun culture is sick. The Japanese get very high degrees of
>>> social compliance by using the fear of social ostracism.
>>
>> You did NOT answer the question. Do you believe fit and strong people
>> should be forced to help those not fit and strong at the barrel of a gun?
>>
>
> And you seem to have misunderstood my point.
And you are ignoring mine.
Since the context got fragmented, here's your initial statement to
reacquaint you with that context:
You wrote:
Tax is supposed to be an exchange of money for common
services that everyone can use. It is also supposed to
be a way of levelling out the playing field. Those who
are lucky enough to be fit and strong have a duty to
help those who are not so lucky. The alternative is to
go and live alone in the wilderness but that is tough,
even for the fit.
I asked:
Do you believe people should be forced to contribute to
charity [...]
You wrote:
[...] coercion to help others is essential
In a word, "yes". You believe people should be forced (coerced) to
contribute to charity.
Whether it's taking the 50 euro excess I have and giving it to my
neighbor to level the playing field, or making the fit and strong help
the less lucky, you are perfectly fine with using force against people
who do not want to do what you want them to do.
You are the one that connected duty to help the less fortunate via and
with taxation. Taxation is extortion accomplished by the State's threat
and willingness to use violence to get compliance. That violence will
escalate to the use of guns if the victim of the state resists such
victimization.
You are the one invoking the State, via taxation, to use violence and
threat of violence, to force others to contribute to charity.
-------------------------------------
> And you seem to have misunderstood my point.
I do not misunderstand your point.
You are the one invoking the State, via taxation, to use violence and
threat of violence, to force others to contribute to charity.
Your point is to change the topic.
I wrote:
You write that those who are fit and strong have a duty
to those who are not. Do you believe fit and strong
people should be forced to help those not fit and
strong at the barrel of a gun.
You wrote:
The USA gun culture is sick.
This is a non-sequitur and is irrelevant. Cognitive dissonance?
You also wrote:
The Japanese get very high degrees of social compliance
by using the fear of social ostracism.
This is also a non-sequitur as well. It is just as irrelevant. As a
lynch pin in your attempt to change the topic it needs to be shot down,
so I address it.
You are comparing social embarrassment with violence and threat of
violence to achieve compliance.
Compliance meaning to make somebody do "something". The "something" to
be done is missing, making your entire statement vague and meaningless.
On the other hand, this dialog has been about using force to gain
compliance with the demand to relinquish ownership of one's property.
Give us your money or we will hurt you.
Continuing on that course, you bring up the following to continue your
attempt to escape from the topic of the State's threat and use of
violence to force compliance with the State's demands. An act you invoke
via "taxation".
> We all influence people to
> make them do things they would not have done if alone. eg. if you go out
> with friends for a meal you come to a compromise about which restaurant
> to use.
Right. You "NEGOTIATE" an "AGREEMENT".
ne·go·ti·ate (v. ne·go·ti·at·ed, ne·go·ti·at·ing,
ne·go·ti·ates. --intr. 1. To confer with another or
others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement.
--tr. 1. To arrange or settle by discussion and mutual
agreement.
a·gree·ment n. 1. The act of agreeing.
a·gree v. a·greed, a·gree·ing, a·grees. --intr. 1. To
grant consent; accede.
When you "NEGOTIATE" an "AGREEMENT" freewill is not violated.
> No agreement and the group breaks up and the evening is spoiled.
And freewill is still not violated.
> We have a duty to encourage each other to cooperate and help those who
> have run into trouble.
I have helped many a person in need on the road. When asked can I give
you something for helping me, I say, You just help the next person.
It is by being helped myself that I have learned how valuable helping
others is.
When I help others, It is my choice, freewill is NOT violated.
Bottom line, if you don't feel good after helping another, then you
shouldn't have helped that person, AND you should not help them again.
>
>>
>> Who owns MY money?
>
> Your money is simply a token of the services you have performed for
> another.
Right. And that token has value. Now who owns MY token?
>> Besides, a lot of churches are still around, having existed only on
>> charity for a very long time.
>
> What about the people who do not give to charity when they could?
Free will is not violated. Rights to property are not violated.
Noted: Your removal of your unsupported assertion of scientific tests
proving that charity needs extortion, er, coercion and my citations and
refutation of same.
> Life
> is complicated and stopping a country full of millions of people
> becoming total chaos requires complicated systems.
You assert that "life is complicated."
The complications are not in evidence.
Your words, "stopping a country full of millions of people [from]
becoming total chaos requires..." implies that if "X" is not done,
"Chaos" will happen.
The "Chaos" that will happen is not in evidence.
The required "X", the required complicated system, is not in evidence.
You wrote "stopping a country full of millions of people [from] becoming
total chaos..." What is the difference between the chaos that presently
exists and the "total chaos" you are worried about?
If "Life is complicated", then chaos already exists. If the solution to
chaos is more complications, then I suggest you need to re-think your
position.
The case for the connection between chaos and complicated is simple.
cha·os n. 1. A condition or place of great disorder OR
CONFUSION.
com·pli·cat·ed adj. 1. Containing intricately combined
or involved parts. 2. NOT EASY TO UNDERSTAND or
analyze.
> Charities have a
> place just as governments do.
Charities exist by the freewill of those donating. States (a.k.a. the
misnomered 'governments') exist by violence that denies free will: Do
what we say, give us what we demand, or we will hurt you.
>>
>> In the example you use, a married couple, the compromise is voluntary.
>> Agreement to the rules is voluntary. One spouse does NOT have the
>> right to order the other spouse to follow the rules.
>>
> And you have the right to leave a country if you do not like its rules.
A country is the territory of a State. The State says, "In this
territory, do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you."
You are suggesting that I find another state to tell me, "Do what we
tell you to do in this territory or we will hurt you, but not as bad as
that other State will hurt you."
When any State says, "Do what we tell you or we will hurt you," they
mean, "We will kill you if you don't do what we tell you after we hurt
you a little bit."
> I have lived in 3 countries and visited many more to assess them and
> believe me every country has its problems.
That problem is spelled G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T.
>>
>> The logic does NOT change just because the group is bigger. Nobody in
>> the group has the right to order anybody else to follow rules.
>> Therefore nobody can give the group the collective right to order
>> anybody else to follow the rules.
>>
>
> These things are not as black and white as you might like. If you agree
> with your partner that you will do something and then do not do it your
> partner has a right to do something about it.
You've almost invoked the fictitious social contract. Let's just nip
that in the bud. I posted that for Melodie of France. You may read it here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/7c551a353636a98a
There is a HUGE difference between what I agree to do of my own free
will and what I am forced to do to avoid the State using and escalating
violence against me, up to, and including killing me for non-compliance.
>> What gives you the right to make rules for me? What gives you the
>> right to order me to follow those rules? What gives you the right to
>> say what I can and can not do? You don't own me.
>>
>
> It is not about owning. If you elect someone into government you have
> given them the right to make rules that affect you.
You have ignored the questions.
What gives you the right to make rules for me? What gives you the right
to order me to follow those rules? What gives you the right to say what
I can and can not do?
It certainly is about owning. You don't own me so YOU CAN'T make rules
for me; order me to follow those rules; say what I can and can not do.
Below, you have confirmed that you agree: Voting for legislators does
NOT give them the right to do what you don't have a right to do.
YOU do not have the right to make rules for me; order me to follow the
rules; say what I can or can not do, therefore:
YOU can NOT give the legislators the right to make rules for me; order
me to follow the rules; tell me what I can or can not do.
If YOU elect someone into the State (a.k.a. the misnomer of
'government') YOU give them the right to make rules that effect YOU.
You do not, and can not, give them the right to make rules that effect ME.
>
>>
>> A big society does not have to have a big rule book. The rules are the
>> same. Do unto others as you [would] have done unto you.
>>
>
> This is where your lack of life experience becomes obvious.
ad hom·i·nem adj. Appealing to personal considerations
rather than to logic or reason.
> The bigger
> the organisation, group, or community the bigger the rule book it needs
> to hold it together and make progress.
You are just re-asserting, without support, what you have already
asserted without support.
> And "Do unto others" only works
> when the others are very similar and want the same thing.
"[O]nly works when others [...] want the same thing"
Like don't violate their life, liberty, and property?
> In real life
> even that often fails. A better philosophy is to respect the free will
> of others.
I asked:
Do you believe people should be forced to contribute to
charity [...]
You wrote:
[...] coercion to help others is essential.
>> I know your understanding of 'government' because I used to believe
>> what you believe.
>>
>
> Such arrogance will prevent you learning important lessons.
Label it as arrogance to give you an out, if you must. Ignore the
inquiry of my understanding of your belief in 'government' because it
scares you, if you must. Choose to ignore a lesson you could learn, if
you must. It is your free will to even have the dialog.
>> Law and Enforcement of law are, by definition, extortion: Do what we
>> tell you to do or we will hurt you.
>>
>
> That is how it may appear
Not "how it may appear". How it IS. If you do not obey the State's
commands, the State will initiate violence against you. If you still
refuse to obey, the State will continue to escalate violence until you
obey or you are dead.
> now but
In other words, you agree it appears that Law and Enforcement of law are
extortion, then you remove said agreement that it appears that Law and
Enforcement of law are extortion.
> my challenge to you is to propose a
> better holistic alternative. Simply complaining about tax is not good
> enough.
My challenge to you is to take the blinders off.
By definition, the State, a.k.a. the misnomer of 'government' is a
terrorist organization. The terrorists in the organization will not
hesitate to use violence against you if you do not do what they want.
Defined in the United States statutes:
the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
involve acts dangerous to human life [...]
appear to be intended -
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States.
Of course, when it's the terrorists making the laws, they are going to
exempt themselves. This is what was removed from the brackets with the
elipsis: [that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States
or of any State;]
It's not just about the tax. Never was. The issue is "authority". It
doesn't exist either.
>> Somalia doesn't understand: Do unto others as you want done unto you.
>>
>
> Nor do most other people. Even if it was the best policy how would you
> teach them?
By example. Just like teaching charity addressed above.
>>
>>
>> Hey, if I'm ignorant, I'm ignorant. The way to get un-ignorant is to
>> request information.
>
> A better way is to read books. People frequently answer questions by
> telling you what they think you want to hear.
Are you admitting to telling me answers you think I want to hear?
> Books are generally the
> most rigorously checked sources of information followed by journals then
> newspaper and then the web. Learn to detect good authors and follow
> them. Neale Walsch is one of my favourites.
If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the
newspaper, you are mis-informed. ~Mark Twain.
There is a provable mainstream media bias in the United States. The
mainstream will NOT address certain topics. That leaves the web and the
attendant problem of caveat emptor.
>>
>>>>
>>>> In any event, I think I have filled in your missing linkage from
>>>> voting to authority to tax. So this brings up the next question:
>>>>
>>>> How does voting for legislators give them the right to do something
>>>> you and I do not have the right to do?
>>>
>>> You are not.
>>
>> You are not what? You are not giving legislators the right to do
>> something you do not have a right to do? I'll assume that is what you
>> meant.
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>>
>> Which brings us to the next question.
>>
>> Do you personally have the right to tax anybody else?
>>
>
> Yes. If I own something and rent it to someone else I have the right to
> reclaim my property if they stop paying.
That is not a tax. That is a rental fee.
> If it gets bad enough I can get
> a court order that tells the police to take it back by force.
So you have stumbled on the exception to the rule. When your rights are
violated, that is the only time you can tell somebody else what to do:
Basically, stop violating me and my rights.
> Rent or
> tax, it amounts to the same thing.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. Your assertion
is wrong.
I'll give you the proof of my refutation anyway.
In the case of rent payment for service:
You and the tenant agreed on what the service was to be, what the price
was to be, and what the conditions for breaking the agreement was to be.
You entered into a contract without coercion. Free will was not violated.
In the case of tax payment for service:
You would have ordered the victim, er, tenant to lease the property and
pay you the rent(tax) whether the future tenant needed to lease the
property, whether the future tenant wanted to lease the property,
whether the future tenant could afford to rent the property, and you
would have threatened to hurt the future tenant if he didn't pay the
rent. Free will is violated at every turn.
> The government is supposed to deliver
> you a service
Says who?
> and they have a right to expect you to pay.
They have a right to expect you to pay for a service you didn't order,
didn't use, and can't afford?
No, they demand that you pay for a service you didn't order, didn't use,
and can't afford, and threaten to hurt you if you don't pay for it.
> If you do not
> like it you have a few choices like go and hide in the wilderness, or
> move country, or get elected and change the law.
It's not about what I "like". It's about the contradictions and illogic
of believing a myth that is no more real than the myth of the tooth faerie.
>>> Tax is an exchange just like shopping is an exchange.
>>
>>
>> No, it's not. When one does shopping, one gets to choose who will
>> provide the goods and services received in the exchange. One gets to
>> reject the service if the cost is too high. One gets to choose whether
>> to make the exchange or not make the exchange.
>>
>
> Your vote represents your choice.
Another unsupported assertion.
>>
>> 'Government' expects payment even if you have refused the service.
>> 'Government' expects payment even when you have used a different
>> provider. 'Government' expects payment even if you have chosen a
>> different mode of service from a different provider.
>>
>
> That is why I propose a "limited resources tax". You only pay for what
> you have chosen to claim for yourself, such as the land you build your
> house on.
Enforcement of this tax will still require goons from the State to say
give us your money or we will hurt you.
>>>>
>>>>> Read my other page which has more to say on this.
>>>>> http://www.copcutt.me.uk/Blakely.htm
>>>>
>>>> Neither of the pages on your site even contain the word "vote". The
>>>> cited page is a poem of sorts, not even your own words. I scanned
>>>> it, could not see the connection you are attempting to make, and am
>>>> now going to ignore it until you direct my attention to the point
>>>> hidden within it that you want me to see.
>>>>
>>> It is quality and deserves more than a scan. If you cannot take the
>>> time to contemplate its every word you do not deserve an answer from me.
>>
>> Then I assume I can look forward to you dropping out of the discussion?
>>
>
> Last chance. You seem to want to learn and the page contains a holistic
> proposition that addresses your questions. It proposes a way forward
> that fixes some big problems. Simple abolishing tax, or refusing to pay
> it, would cause chaos.
The definition of "Chaos", referred to by you twice, and implied by you
as "something bad", is not in evidence.
Taxation is extortion. You can not evade that reality.
>>
>
>>
>>> However, try to see the bigger picture and concentrate your effort
>>> where it is needed and that is with things like improving the honesty
>>> of governments.
>>
>> Translation:
>>
>> Try to concentrate my effort on things like improving the honesty of a
>> group of politicians who lied to get elected, who use law to steal,
>> and who order their thugs to murder if you resist their extortion.
>>
>
> It is a start isn't it.
Your "reply", noted without comment.
>>
>>> > 3. You do NOT have the right to take my property just because you
>>> want
>>> > it or because you will use it for the benefit of society.
>>
>>
>> My point #3 is a compound sentence and contains multiple sub-points. I
>> will break it down to confirm your contrary assertion on each sub-point.
>>
>> By disagreeing with my statement #3:
>>
>> 3a. You are asserting that you have the right to take my property just
>> because you want it;
>> 3b. You are asserting that you have the right to take my property
>> because you will use it for the benefit of society.
>>
>
> I am saying 3b.
Therefore, you have asserted that you don't care about MY property rights.
Neither does a carjacker, a bank robber, a convenience store robber, a
burglar, a pirate, an embezzler, a swindler, a thief, etcetera ad nauseam.
>> Therefore, you have asserted that you don't care about MY property
>> rights. Neither does a carjacker, a bank robber, a convenience store
>> robber, a burglar, a pirate, an embezzler, a swindler, a thief,
>> etcetera ad nauseam.
>>
>
> The tax laws are supposed to care about both your property rights and
> the rights of the community you live in.
It does NOT matter what the tax laws are SUPPOSED to do. What matters is
what the tax laws ACTUALLY do.
Tax laws are a demand by the State to "Give us your money (property) or
we will hurt you." By its very nature, tax laws VIOLATE property rights.
> I propose a limited resources
> tax to fix the fact it does not yet work as well as it might.
You propose a different method that is STILL a demand to "Give us your
money or we will hurt you."
By that reality, a tax law that would work "as well as it might" would
be one where all the slaves, er, citizens had radio controlled explosive
collars. Don't pay the tax and a button push separates your head from
your shoulders. Now that would be a tax that "works as well as it
might". Don't bother with sending the sheriff, just push a button.
Replacing the context you accidentally removed when you cut to write
your answer:
>> Because of your vagueness caused by you not finishing an answer, point g uses
the best I could make of your intent.
>
> It takes time to address the level of pedantry you choose to use. I have
> better things to do.
ped·ant·ry n. 1. Pedantic attention to detail or rules.
2. An instance of pedantic behavior. 3. The habit of
mind or manner characteristic of a pedant.
This is a bad thing? attention to detail ABOUT the rules? Like the fact
that the rules are: "Do what we say or we will hurt you"?
ped·ant n. 1. One who pays undue attention to book
learning and formal rules. 2. One who exhibits one's
learning or scholarship ostentatiously. 3. Obsolete. A
schoolmaster.
Compare to:
My observation is that people who have not travelled
much tend to be narrow minded.
[...] until you take the time to study it you are
denying yourself an education.
This is where your lack of life experience becomes
obvious.
A better way is to read books.
>
>> a. Tax (the noun) is property taken by taxation.
>> b. Taxation (the verb) is the taking of property.
>> c. The "authority" to take property (taxation) is
>> delegated to the tax takers, "by law".
>> d. "Laws" can be said to have "authority" when the
>> persons making the laws have "authority" to make said
>> laws.
>> e. Said law makers are called "legislators".
>> f. Said legislators are chosen "by vote".
>> g. "You are not" giving legislators rights to do things
>> you don't have a right to do by voting for them.
>> h. A law is a command telling me what to do.
>> i. You don't have the right (authority) to command me.
>> j. You can't give the right (authority) to command me
>> to the legislators because you don't have that right.
>> k. If you do not have the right (authority) to command
>> me personally, then the legislators do not have the
>> right (authority) to command me personally either.
>> l. Therefore, "you are not" giving legislators the
>> right (authority) to do things by voting for them.
>>
>
> My disagreement starts with h.
h. states: A law is a command telling me what to do. You disagree with
h. Are you saying a law is NOT a command telling me what to do?
> A law is supposed to put limits on
> behaviour but not control it.
lim·it n. 1. The point, edge, or line beyond which
something cannot or may not proceed. 3. A confining or
restricting object, agent, or influence. --lim·it tr.v.
lim·it·ed, lim·it·ing, lim·its. 1. To confine or
restrict within a boundary or bounds.
con·trol tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols.
1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence
over; direct. 2. To hold in restraint; check.
--con·trol n. 1. Authority or ability to manage or
direct. 2.a. One that controls; a controlling agent,
device, or organization.
soph·is·try n. 1. Plausible but fallacious
argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or
fallacious argument.
A limit IS a control.
> i. is also wrong because when we share
> something with another (like living in the same country) we have to have
> cooperative behaviour otherwise we are regressing into savagery.
i. states: You don't have the right (authority) to command me.
You assert that statement is wrong. In doing so, you are stating you you
DO have the right to command me. In doing so, you are stating that you
have a higher right to control my actions than I do.
How did you get a higher claim on my actions than I myself have?
I don't remember being sold to you.
Are you my master?
Are you a dictator?
Are you a king?
Are you a God?
Your "because" reasons are irrelevant. They do NOT give you a higher
claim on my actions than I myself have.
> Because
> i. is wrong j,k. and l. are wrong.
In order to prove i. is wrong, you need to show how you got a higher
claim on my actions than I myself have. Show your work. Use the back
side of this page if you need more room.
Otherwise: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
>>
>> You have basically asserted that by doing the cult ritual of "voting"
>> you magically create and give "authority" to the legislators.
>> "Authority" that you don't have in the first place so you don't have
>> it to give to the legislators.
>>
>
> We do have the right in the first place to demand a certain level of
> cooperation from our fellow citizens.
You DON'T have the right to tell me, "Give me your property or I will
hurt you." Personally, the legislators don't have that right either.
They don't have it personally, you don't have it personally, You can't
give it to them by voting for them.
So you DON'T have the right to demand a certain level of cooperation
from me to give up MY property to you because you demand it.
>>
>>
>> No, I didn't vote them in. By voting, I would be agreeing that the
>> politician has the right to command me. He doesn't.
>>
>
> If you chose not to use your vote you are giving away a significant
> power to change things.
Let me see if I've got this straight, I can vote for candidate A, whose
laws will be in the form of "Do what we tell you or we will hurt you",
or I can vote for candidate B, whose laws will be in the form of "Do
what we tell you or we will hurt you".
When you vote for the lessor of two evils, you are STILL voting FOR evil.
Nope. I don't see it. I don't see a power to change anything. That being
the case, I'm NOT giving away anything by not partaking of the cult
ritual of State worship.
By partaking of the cult ritual of State worship, I would be sanctifying
the choosing of evil.
>>
>>> So the root cause of the problem is not with the concept of tax but
>>> with the dishonesty of governments.
>>
>> Well... I suppose I could accept extortion as a form of dishonesty.
>>
> Small progress!
Sorry. I forgot the tags.
<sarcasm>
Well... I suppose I could accept extortion as a form of dishonesty.
</sarcasm>
>>
>>
>> And if I'm protecting my property from State goons who are attempting
>> to steal it from me and I chose to resist their attempts, do I have a
>> right to kill them in self defense?
>>
>
> If they really did behave goonishly then maybe.
Mr. Copcutt, are you not paying attention?
ALL law enforcement is "Do what we say or we will hurt you."
Tax law says "Give us your property". If you refuse to give them the
property, The State goons, i.e. the police FORCE, will initiate violence
against you. If you continue to resist, they will escalate and continue
to escalate the violence against you until you comply or they kill you.
State goons will ALWAYS act goonishly if you don't obey the State's demands.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a right to justly acquired, hold, use, enjoy, discard,
>>>> or sell property according to your will?
>>>
>>> We could spend a year trying to define "justly".
>>
>> just adj. 1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and
>> actions. See Synonyms at fair. 2. Consistent with what
>> is morally right; righteous: a just cause. 3. Properly
>> due or merited.
>>
>> Justly acquired, Property (money) earned by exchanging a fair day's
>> labor for a fair day's pay. Property (tangible goods) acquired by a
>> fair exchange of other property (money or other property). Both
>> parties to the exchange there by mutual consent, not "coerced".
>>
>> Two minutes.
>>
>
> You missed my point.
I wrote:
We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are
created equal...
You wrote:
That all men are created equal is not a self-evident
truth. That we all have equal rights, maybe, but in
every other way we are all different.
I chose to not make comment about your lack of knowledge of the American
Declaration of Independence, allowing for the cultural difference.
I wrote:
That we all have equal rights is not a maybe, unless
you are a slave owner or any other of various sundry
tyrants. That we all have equal rights IS the
self-evident truth.
You chose to attack the concept of equal rights when you wrote:
Does a murderer have the same rights as a doctor?
Defining what rights we have is also an endless debate.
I presented a representative example of rights:
Do you have a right to life?
Do I have the right to kill you?
Do you have a right to justly acquired, hold, use,
enjoy, discard, or sell property according to your will?
Do I have the right to take your property because I
want it for myself or because I will use it to
society's benefit?
You wrote:
We could spend a year trying to define "justly".
I pasted the dictionary definition of "just"
No, Mr. Copcutt, I didn't miss your point.
You've agreed that you can NOT give a legislator a right to do something
that you don't have the right to do. In order to give the legislator the
right to take property (tax) you have to prove that you have the right
to take property. You can only do that if you can prove you actually
have a higher claim to my property than I do.
You have asserted that you have the right to take my property because
you will use it for the benefit of society.
You have asserted that you have a higher claim on MY property than I do.
You've asserted you have a higher claim of right on my actions than I
do. You've asserted that you have the right (authority) to command me.
In order for you to do that, our rights MUST NOT BE EQUAL.
Your point, Mr. Copcutt, is to avoid this truth.
Your sophistry continues:
> You cannot just use a word and expect everyone to
> agree on the subtleties and nuances and implications. What is just to
> one person is unfair to another. Trying to get too dogmatic about these
> things just wastes time.
Translation: It is just and fair for me to take your property, and
ignore your property rights. You are getting "dogmatic" about defending
the concept of your rights of property and liberty.
dog·mat·ic adj. 1. Relating to, characteristic of, or
resulting from dogma.
dog·ma n. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or
statement of ideas or opinion, especially one
considered to be absolutely true.
QUOTE:
The following is a rather shallow explanation but its a
start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_ (psychology)
Thought forms are also mirrored. You see problems in
others that you yourself have.
You have asserted that you have the right to take my property because
you will use it for the benefit of society. You have asserted that you
have a higher claim on MY property than I do. You've asserted you have a
higher claim of right on my actions than I do. You've asserted that you
have the right (authority) to command me. Who's being dogmatic?
>>
>>>> Do I have the right to take your property because I want it for
>>>> myself or because I will use it to society's benefit?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about extreme emergencies?
>>
>> There are 365 days in a year. How many days of extreme emergencies of
>> the type you refer to have you experienced in the last 730 days?
>>
>
> Why put a time limit on it? If your life is in danger and others do not
> help you (where that help might involve taking property) then your life
> of x many years ends rather quickly.
Okay, don't put a time limit on it. How many times have you personally
experienced a situation in your life where your choice was violate
somebody's right to property or somebody was going to die?
Your argument attempts to justify the State's systematic use of
extortion, threat of violence, and if need be, actual violence to steal
property.
And once the state initiates violence, and you resist and continue to
resist the violence, the State WILL escalate and continue to escalate
the violence until "your life of x many years ends rather quickly."
>>
>>>> Do you own yourself?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good question. What is the self?
>>
>> That part of you I would order into the fields to pick cotton. That
>> part of me that you would order I believe as you do about taxation.
>
> I call that my body. My self, to me, is a spiritual thing.
Okay.
Do you own your body?
Do you own your "self"?
Do you own Robert Copcutt?
> >> Bruce Richmond wrote:
> >>> If it is not your writing and you placed it on your site then you
> >>> copied it. It is as simple as that. The fact that you have
> >>> permission to post a copy does not make it any less a copy. So copy
> >>> is a good word to describe it. You just don't like the word copy.
> >> Words cannot have exact meanings and they all have subtle implications
> >> and nuances. The word "copy" is sometimes associated with cheating.
> >> "Publish" is a more accurate word in this case.
> > The word copy is still correct. You don't like it as well as others,
> > but that does not make it wrong. I suspect you don't like it because
> > it admits that the writing was not your own original work. Your
> > trying to downplay that fact may be why you are sensitive about the
> > association with cheating.
> Yes it is correct in the broad sense of the meanings of the words
> "correct" and "copy". However, one of the main themes of my website is
> the importance of truth. Conveying the truth to people is difficult and
> requires more than simply using words that are "correct". It requires
> that we look at nuances and implications as well. The fact that
> Pollard's receiving was written by him and not me is clearly stated but
> I would still prefer to use words like "publish" or "reproduced" rather
> than "copy" so that fewer people go away with the wrong impression.
> Robertwww.copcutt.me.uk- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -