Held to by what? Higher by what means? Is your conscience higher than government? Is it ever moral to break the law?
A global government would be higher than a nations government. The idea would be a global constitution that all governments are held to. Constitution are negative rights lists.
larger govs (ie tribes, city-states, then states, nations) have not reduced corruption/abuses of power. Why would yet another, larger gov “hold ppl” to anything?
I dont think reducing corruption is their main goal. I think a bit of corruption is inevitable, and I accept it.
I mostly want a global constitution that all nations are held to.
ok then, abuse of power. & why cant you leave people alone? People choose to live in these conditions to be free from government >
Yes they can. I am not stopping them. I have no problem with people creating their own communities independant of established communities. Lots of land to do that in North America.
doesn’t sound that way from the rest of the thread: “Not paying taxes is theft. Taxes are payment for services rendered. If you choose to live in a place that gets the benefits of
taxes you are morally obligated to pay.” “National autonomy. The right to complete independance. The ability to completely resist utside interference. The world could use nations
having less of that.” “At this point it would be fine to remove governments that disagree. Voluntary is nice, but not required."
One is talking about individuals, the other about nation states. People can move to the middle of nowhere to not have less obligation to pay taxes if they want.
Global constitution is fine as long as it's installed like amendments to US Constitution: overwhelming majority in each country. Unlikely to occur, especially when we go crossplanetary
It would likely be based on western constitutions to some degree, but probably a little less restrictive only to make the rest of the world agree.
at least you support negative rights.
So you don't see a value in competition in government? Do you see a value in competition in business?
Of course I believe in competition in government. That is what representative democracy is based on.
That's the majority imposing their will on the majority, not competition.
Competing to have the public want you to represent them. How is that not competition? Competing to have a greater majority consider you a viable representative.
This is competition between politicians within one government. Not competition between governments for citizens.
True. For governments to compete for citizens requires freedom of movement. Living standards and job opportunities would be how they would compete then.
agree, greater freedom of movement would force them to be more competitive & thus improve.
That freedom of movement I figure would need to come from a global constitution restricting nations right to force people to stay, or come.
An alternative would be smaller competing states. & because (actual) free trade allows open societies to out compete closed off societies the world would become more open.
the risk is that “bad” people can be shut out of the entire system (blacklisted) with no where else to go. Much like billions are shut out of the banking system now.
And bad is defined by the people in power. They may actually be bad people (eg murderers) or they may just be politically opposing those in power.
With that definition of competition I suppose even a burglar is engaged in "competitive activity", "competing" against other burglars.
Technically burglars compete against security.
A majority enslaving the minority is not "competition" in any reasonable meaning of the word. Competition means A doing their thing, and B doing their thing.
You say enslaving when there is no enslavement. A competition requires A andBto be doing something against one another. It isn't competing if the actions of each are not related.
Majority rule (democracy) means enslavement if the majority says so. YouTube and Vimeo doesn't have to be at war to compete.
YouTube and Vineo do compete. War is irrelevant.
Sure, in that absurd example people can force slavery. That doesn't mean democracy equals slavery. You are really stretching.
What absurd example? Majority rule is majority rule, unless constrained by something else. It doesn't *always* result in slavery obviously.
Saying that democracy is slavery is an absurd example. Yes a government can be constrained by a constitution.
Then you need to outline exactly in what ways the constitution would constrain majority rule (or whatever you mean by "democracy").
Look at the real world. Do you really need me to give you a lesson on constitutions? Judges shoot down laws that are unconstitutional. Judiciary over rules the government.
You are the one introducing the concept of a global constitutional government. Do you know what you mean by that or not?
Yes... I've been jumping back and forth between national and global discussions. That said it would be the same as in all western nations. A court would overturn unconstitutional laws.
Democracy is mob rule by definition. Two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner, as they say.
HOW are any of those held to anything? What holds anyone to any constitution?
The current one is disregarded. Not that it matters, since it embeds theft, calling it taxation.
Setting aside the absurdity of seeing taxation as theft, the constitution is being observed. Maybe not by your interpretation, but that just shows the importance of interpretation.
How is seeing the taking of resources without regard for consent (taxation) as theft, absurd?
Not paying taxes is theft. Taxes are payment for services rendered. If you choose to live in a place that gets the benefits of taxes you are morally obligated to pay.
Is it a service if you can't opt out?
lol was waiting "george ought to help" to be posted ITT. solid video.
Yes, but that means leaving the area. You need to leave the area receiving he benefits, and pretend to be opting out.
You can't opt out if there is a global government.
Not true. You can opt out within some nations.
Nations (plural) is mutually exclusive to global government.
The absence of optionality seems like a defining characteristic of government in general.
You can have nations under a global government the same way you have provinces and states under a federal government. It would just be an additional layer.
Sort of like the UN then, but with more power over nation states? What areas of life would it dictate? If a religion gains global majority, could it impose religious law globally?
Global laws would likely only apply to nations, and global entities. Things done of oceans, etc.
It seems we already have that, with the U.N. and similar treaties.
Almost. The UN has no real enforcement ability though. They give a strongly worded letter to nations that break the rules. Also they dont give jurisdiction on international waters.
I think you have to make up your mind. Either one of the global government or the nation state needs to have final say.
I did make it up. A global government should have the authority to hold nations to a constitution. Restricting the powers of national governments over their people.
So the global government could only act with force against national governments and not against individuals?
Yes, at least in how I would like to see it. Restricting governments from abusing their people. Freedom of movement to prevent nations like North Korea from enslaving their people
Would it restrict national governments from stealing from their people?
If they out that in there, sure. Depends what you mean by stealing though. Please dont say taxation is theft as it is a failed argument built on false premises.
Taxation is theft.
Taxation is payment for services rendered. You can always leave the taxable area and live on your own. Staying in the taxable are is your choice.
If u weren't rich, u didn't get to choosed your citizenship before 2009. Bitcoin is in part a new global nation
I did not ask for and do not want those services. I do not consent.
If the government offered the following deal at 18, it might be more fair, (not perfect, but more fair).
"I, ___________, consent to the social contract."
But also allow those who do not consent viable alternatives. Perhaps an anarcho-primitive human reservation. Perhaps a one-way ticket to any other sovereign they can apply for asylum.
You have choices! 1) Refuse to pay and find out what happens. 2) Work to change the system. 3) Pay the taxes
You consider acting under threat of violence to be a choice?
It's either Be Stolen From, or Jail or Death if you resist.
You grew up knowing you were receiving those benefits, and would be asked go pay your share when you could. If you didn't make plans to leave hen you consented.
"You live in mafia territory and didn't choose to flee your home, your friends, and your family therefore you consented. "
You don't understand consent.
I do. Your analogy also doesn't work. Your family and friends understand the great deal they are getting. You are free to choose to leave. You wont be tracked down like the mafia.
Leave to another tax farm? What a non-option.
Free to go live in the woods. Sometimes you can even benefit from absconded places. Ghost towns and such. The US has some communities like that. It is an option.
My family and friends understand that if they don't pay they get put in a cage. You're not even free to leave. You don't understand what you're talking about.
I know quite well what I am talking about. Not every nation hails people for not laying taxes. The US is pretty hard on the issue though.
Also, why is the impetus on the person objecting to being stolen from, to move?
Why not the bully US move? To Somalia?
One individual disgarees with millions, which means it is on the individual to leave. The millions are not the ones to leave. Even in terms of private property, the individual leaves.
1 individual disagrees with millions?
You must not be aware of the thriving anarchist community. At the least, thousands of people disagree.
Thousands is one in hundreds of thousands then. Not one in millions. As it is the anarchist community is divided and fractured into sub groups, which displays how it cant work.
Your selective attention and idea about how a group of people who associate over the idea that taxation is theft, means that having society based on voluntary interactions can't work?
Do AnComs really agree that taxation is theft? Anarchism doesnt work because it requires a level of agreement that doesnt appear to be there.
That's what you consider as needing agreement? No wonder you think it doesn't work. I wouldn't if I thought all schools of anarchism had to work together, either.
They wouldn't even have to work together. Just work within themselves, which doesnt seem likely.
What do you advocate for?
I advocate for the current system continuing, with a movement toward further globalisation. The establishment of a proper global government would be nice.
What is the current system?
What would globalization look like?
The current system of western democracies. I would like to see globalisation move toward a global constitution that all the worlds nations are under.
What of the ancoms? I don't associate with them and actively rally against them.
They are a major part of the anarchist community though, if not the majority of it.
You're right.
It's just like how bitcoin is bullshit because the btc and bch are such split communities. Cryptocurrency is clearly an idealist scam.
Bitcoin isn't a society. An anarchist society would break down into many small communities. Many of those communities going back to non anarchist systems.
Bitcoin doesn't exist without people using it. We are the bitcoin cash community.
Are you arguing for doing what our ancestors did because we originated from them?
My parents gave me shit throughout my childhood, it doesn't create some kind of obligation on my part.
Staying creates the obligation. You may not understand the value of having been born in a stable nation, but that doesn't mean you didn't benefit from it.
It’s voluntary because you can leave
Taxes aren't voluntary. No one ever said they were. They are mandatory, you receive shit from the government that you didn't ask for and are expected to pay.
In a way, it's like those homeless people that put something in your hand and demand that you pay them for it.
Like those guys that randomly come up and wipe your windows without you asking at all, and then they bang on your car and scream at you when you don't pay them.
exactly, love that comparison. like the homeless people who wash your window with a dirty rag then demand payment.
I didn't ask for the war in Iraq, yet I'm still expected to pay for it. NASA? What if i don't want a space program? Still forced to pay.
Do i at least get to DIRECTLY control how my stolen money is spent? No. I have to *elect* some motherfucker who decides for me.
Your money is going to build a wall because Mexico isn't paying for it. LOL.
But do i get to choose whether i pay for it? NOPE
Because apparently informing ourselves when we make political decisions is too hard to do. We simply just have to trust it to people that are more "capable" than us to make decisions.
In a world where anyone can vote, and inform themselves on political matters from the comfort of their home with a internet connected device paired with blockchain security to boot.
But no guys, we can't have direct democracy! Tyranny of the majority!!! Like the majority doesn't get what the fuck they want anyway.
Elected representation is so good that we got stuck with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our only two choices!!! And we didn't even get to pick between the two, not really!
lol - oops typed at the same time.🤦♀️
Taxes are voluntary.
According to which government?
Starting to think this guy is just trolling and he doesn't actually believe a word he says. Posterity will throw him in with ED and LightRider.
What about (un)SilentSam? 😎
This place is such a good uncensorable & immutable microcosm of online opinion shaping and disinformation. It will make a great study someday ✍🏼
Lol, I think ED and LightRider are for real (no offence, you 2. Weagree on lots). TrashPoster, however, is definitely just a master shit-poster.
You couldn't deduce that from the username? ;)
You can always go live in the wilderness. No one is stopping you. That said the penalty for not paying taxes isn't the same everywhere. They dont jail you in Canada.
You could always stop defending mass fraud (taxation).
No one is stopping you.
Why should those contending the fraud be the ones to go?
Yeah, I know what you mean.
I have guns pointed at me all day and that's totally what voluntary means. /s
Except you dont. They will imprison you in the USA for not paying though I guess.
And of you request, you are met with those guns aforementioned.
So yeah, I do. So do most others.
It is harsh that the USA enforces taxes that hard, but the fact that the requirement is enforced does not lead to why you are not obligated to pay in the first place.
What?
It should be a simple concept. At a basic level we are obligated to be good to one another. The fact that we enforce laws people agree upon doesnt mean we are not obligated to be good.
How is systematic theft being good to Anyone victim of such?
Systematic theft isn't good. Systematic theft is people and companies not paying their taxes.
How do you define taxation?
Well not as theft for one. It is part of your contribution to the society you live in. It allows the system to run. You want the Google definition?
To be more specific one is obligated to pay for the services rendered. One can choose to leave the society that uses taxation, and no longer be obligated to pay.
"You grew up knowing you were receiving those benefits, and would be asked go pay your share when you could. If you didn't make plans to leave hen you consented." - SILENTSAM
Ah, anarco-capitalists. You should stop arguing that taxes are immoral because they're involuntary. How about arguing that their immoral because it's stealing.
The conversation started with do people consent to taxes.
I mean, involuntary is part of stealing. if stealing were voluntary it would be a transaction.
"anarco-capitalists" LOL.
Yes, and both can leave. Both may not think they can, but they can.
By the same logic if you are held at gun point & asked for all your money, you can choose to not give it up at the risk of getting shot. That does not make giving it up voluntary.
& having the “choice” to not give it up does not make the interaction an exchange instead of stealing.
Even if the robber gives some of the money to charity or buys the victim a drink with the stolen money doesn’t change the fact that it was stolen.
This all of course assumes you agree that money you earn from your own work belongs to you. You could try to argue all money earned/value created belongs to the group.
Can without repercussions?
All actions have repercussions. Good, or bad. That said the repercussions of not paying taxes differs by country. He IRS arrests you and the CRA sends strongly worded letters.
Staying isn't an action or a means of positive assent to some kind of obligation to be imposed on others.
I guess if a woman stays in a neighborhood she consents to being raped?
In the case of taxation it is. It isn't nearly staying, or leaving. It is a matter of receiving the benefits everyone there pays into, while acting as if you dont have to contribute.
Staying on earth (because pretty much everywhere is a tax farm now) validates being stolen from, because you benefitted from previous work not done explicitly for you?
To a certain degree though, yes it does. Humans are social creatures, and we have put a lot of work into civilization. Humans expect other humans to contribute. We are social creatures
It does? Isn't systematic stealing ("contributing") an anti-social activity?
The only theft is by those not paying their taxes while living off of the benefits of them. It is theft from the community. This leaves the society free to reject you.
Doesn't monopolization prevent the ability to make alternatives to use instead, such as the roads? Health care?
Doesn't this decrease efficiency?
Yes, and no. Healthcare is an example how? How is this related to the idea of taxation as theft though? Many different nations have different competing systems over time.
Are you not familiar with the welfare state, Obamacare, and such?
Healthcare related to taxation.
I am familiar with how it helps the system and reduces costs. It made things more efficient. That said Obamacare is a right wing healthcare system. Single payer would have been better.
So, those who reject the idea of taxation based on its involuntary nature and speak out against it as a violation of consent, aren't being stolen from?
No they are not. They are just being dramatic. Especially considering the untrue nature of the premises their argument stand on.
And how it is untrue that they are being stolen from?
It is a trade that the people have agreed upon communally. Attempting to live there without paying taxes would be the only real theft. Leaving would be how you would avoid stealing.
Not everywhere. There are lots of places one can go. Many still within national borders letting you still benefit a small amount for free. Lots of land outside of civilization.
But everyone can't just choose which country to live in... most people can't easily move countries
Unless you're rich, then you can move yourself or simply your money.
True, and I do have a different perspective living in a country that has a lot of land you can live on without having to pay taxes. They also do not jail you for not paying taxes here.
Where do you live?
Canada
Where bouts in Canada Eh?
Right, because doxxing yourself or getting close to that is a great idea on an immutable blockchain.
???? lol ????
What?
Right, because doxxing yourself or getting close to that is a great idea on an immutable blockchain.
You will still go to jail eventually.
You can technically be criminally charged, but to do so they have to throw out all evidence against you before a crininal investigation can begin. They dont press criminal charges.
The idea I'm getting at is that being explicit about what they are held to would be what I'm getting at.
See how descriptive being vague is?
What one individual thinks of globalism does not matter as much as what globalism inevitably becomes. What the people collectively want from globalism.
Then, since you are an individual, does it matter what you think of globalism?
I'm trying to get you to be more specific. This is vague gibberish to me.
No it doesn't really matter. Group decisions are made by many individuals. Each individual doesn't get everything they want. That is how people confuse democracy with tyranny.
If it doesn't matter what you think about globalism, why are you trying to convince other people that globalism isn't a scam?
Or are you saying that, alone, your opinion do much?
What do you mean by "matter?" I am trying to convince others to sway group opinion. Since globalism has done so much good I promote it. Obviously it isn't a scam.
What do >I< mean? What do You mean?:
"No it doesn't really matter."
I'm still not sure what you mean by globalism, but what do you mean that it has done so much good?
My opinion matters to me, but my opinion is not the average opinion of the group. I see Merritt in my opinion, and so try to sway the group opinion with my own, as others do.
So... your opinion matters to you, but when push comes to shove, if people en masse don't agree with you, you're out of luck, and you'll try and convince people in the meantime?
That's generally my take on things as well. When shove comes to blows, I am outta there.
And that's why we're on Memo and BTC; hard forking allows disagree. Although with ABC and SV, the result would be a fading jubilee.
Nah, I like to believe that conflict is healthy. Sure it doesn't seem like it at the time. But the alternative is already clear: we folded to UASF in order to keep the peace.
Yes, that is how the world works.
*that, alone, your opinion doesn't do much?
