just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Politics and other such topical creams.
eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:I would suggest that if the state is the chief violator of our liberties, it's because its actions minimizes the liberty violations that would occur if it didn't exist. That is, if there were no state, other forces would rush into the vacuum to assault us. I'm not suggesting some crazed state of nature, but the same coercion that you object to also prevents other citizens or organizations from coercing you (assuming the state hasn't been corrupted to look the way for one group and not the other; that's a whole different topic). To use your Mafia analogy, other gangs would step in to fuck you over if the most powerful gang in town didn't exist. So, yeah, it's not perfect by any stretch but it could be worse.
Sure, I agree with that to a degree, which is why (as I've mentioned) I wouldn't push a big red button that would get rid of the state immediately--it has to be replaced gradually since otherwise it would be replaced by another state--which is what I see those "other forces" as. As I've said before, I prefer New Deal over Raw Deal for example. At the same time, I do not believe that just because one gang exists to fight off other gangs means that 1. I shouldn't recognize it as a gang, and 2. that a different arrangement is not possible.
And, fundamentally, I agree with you on points 1 and 2. The quandary, tho, is what's more desirable for you as an anarchist: a nakedly oppressive and marginalizing state (e.g., Pinochet's Chile) that fills most citizens with frustration and perhaps a revolutionary spirit; or something more progressive, more responsive to a greater percentage of the population—a social democratic state—that is more likely to make most feel that the state fundamentally works and less likely to begin the process of eradicating it? Put differently, do you need people to be miserable for you to attain your aims?
Number 1 is not an option for practical reasons (the momentum for the anarchist movement vanished after the betrayal in Spain) and also because suffering is awful. I choose number 2 because it's not necessary that people hate the state. By building counterinstitutions and promoting the ideas, the state will just become unnecessary. But it's a long, long process. In the meantime, the anarchist should serve as the conscience of the nation. The state the American revolutionaries rebelled against wasn't that bad, so things don't always have to get worse before they get better. And of course the caveat about their hypocrisy applies, yet they still continued to inspire revolutionary movements into the 20th century--among them being the Viet Minh.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

nsc wrote:
eumaas wrote:
nsc wrote:and relax.

what a lot of hot air and posturing. eumaas sounds more like a republican than an anarchist.
Shouldn't you be at the Klan rally, anti-Semite?
now you sound even more like the republican you are than the well read anarchist you pretend to be.
I believe in defending a frequently persecuted people against your slander. There's nothing anarchist about a pogrom, you scumsucker. Have fun at the Holocaust Denial cookout.

P.S. I don't know many republicans who support flag burning.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115994
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by Dr. Medulla »

eumaas wrote:Number 1 is not an option for practical reasons (the momentum for the anarchist movement vanished after the betrayal in Spain) and also because suffering is awful. I choose number 2 because it's not necessary that people hate the state. By building counterinstitutions and promoting the ideas, the state will just become unnecessary. But it's a long, long process. In the meantime, the anarchist should serve as the conscience of the nation. The state the American revolutionaries rebelled against wasn't that bad, so things don't always have to get worse before they get better. And of course the caveat about their hypocrisy applies, yet they still continued to inspire revolutionary movements into the 20th century--among them being the Viet Minh.
A difficult task either way, but my gut sense is that it's tougher when the state is seen as a net positive. That is, it's harder to make the mental leap from good to better (with the possibility that it could go good to bad—that is always a possibility), than bad to the possibility of better. Now, I'm only talking about getting people to think about changing their present circumstances via a withering of the state. I'm reasonably certain, on the other hand, that there is a greater chance of success in the first scenario than the second, even if it's harder to motivate in the first.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

nsc
User avatar
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1297
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: E C O S S E

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by nsc »

eumaas wrote:
nsc wrote:
eumaas wrote:
nsc wrote:and relax.

what a lot of hot air and posturing. eumaas sounds more like a republican than an anarchist.
Shouldn't you be at the Klan rally, anti-Semite?
now you sound even more like the republican you are than the well read anarchist you pretend to be.
I believe in defending a frequently persecuted people against your slander. There's nothing anarchist about a pogrom, you scumsucker. Have fun at the Holocaust Denial cookout.

P.S. I don't know many republicans who support flag burning.
flag burning and flag waving are two sides of the same coin.

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

nsc wrote:
eumaas wrote:
nsc wrote:
eumaas wrote:
nsc wrote:and relax.

what a lot of hot air and posturing. eumaas sounds more like a republican than an anarchist.
Shouldn't you be at the Klan rally, anti-Semite?
now you sound even more like the republican you are than the well read anarchist you pretend to be.
I believe in defending a frequently persecuted people against your slander. There's nothing anarchist about a pogrom, you scumsucker. Have fun at the Holocaust Denial cookout.

P.S. I don't know many republicans who support flag burning.
flag burning and flag waving are two sides of the same coin.
Yeah, I know, you're more into ovens, aren't you? Get the fuck out of here.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
Posts: 55432
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by Wolter »

eumaas, nsc is not worth quoting.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

Wolter wrote:eumaas, nsc is not worth quoting.
Neither are you, assface!

More Locke talk:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_3/1_3_4.pdf
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

nsc
User avatar
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1297
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: E C O S S E

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by nsc »

eumaas wrote:
nsc wrote:
eumaas wrote:
nsc wrote:
eumaas wrote: Shouldn't you be at the Klan rally, anti-Semite?
now you sound even more like the republican you are than the well read anarchist you pretend to be.
I believe in defending a frequently persecuted people against your slander. There's nothing anarchist about a pogrom, you scumsucker. Have fun at the Holocaust Denial cookout.

P.S. I don't know many republicans who support flag burning.
flag burning and flag waving are two sides of the same coin.
Yeah, I know, you're more into ovens, aren't you? Get the fuck out of here.
what? and miss all your witty banter. all i offered up was evidence (in a thread) to show
there was Israeli 'involvement' (by agents of the state not the citizens) on 9/11 and now i'm
an anti semite, klan member in charge of the ovens at a holocaust denial cookout and i
have to wear a badge that says "foe" and you have the cheek to tell me to get to fuck.

nsc
User avatar
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1297
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: E C O S S E

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by nsc »

Wolter wrote:eumaas, nsc is not worth quoting.
don't worry euanus, wolters got your back. :kiss:

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

nsc wrote:some asinine shit
http://www.adl.org/
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Rat Patrol
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 15431
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 9:23pm
Location: A flat burning junkheap for twenty square miles

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by Rat Patrol »

This thread makes me want to
Image
myself.

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115994
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Rat Patrol wrote:This thread makes me want to
Image
myself.
Welcome to The Dictator …
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

Rat Patrol wrote:This thread makes me want to
Image
myself.
If you don't like the direction, contribute a new line of discussion.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

Resurrecting the beast!

http://nothirdsolution.com/2008/07/01/a ... uncle-sam/
All Your Property Are Belong to Uncle Sam
July 1, 2008

Sometimes people say that if you don’t like your taxes, your government, their wars, their policies, etc., that you should just go somewhere else. This is an argument used by redneck right-wingers and quasi-commie social democrats; the “if-you-don’t-like-it-get-the-fuck-out” argument. Reasonable adults should be able to agree to disagree, without resorting to violence.

No, they tell me, If I don’t like being stolen from, I should just leave. If I try to defend myself from the thieves, they’ll shoot me. You see, the penalty is always death. This is what passes as a legitimate method for solving problems: if you don’t like it, we’ll fucking kill you. Yeah, that’s mature.

But this argument has been exposed as absolute bullshit for some time#. The U.S. government has levied, or attempted to levy taxes on wealthy expats, for some statutory period (I think 5 years) on the presumption that they are expats solely because they are trying to avoid paying U.S. taxes. This strikes me as a pretty suspect argument, insofar as it violates the two most-commonly cited justificatory arguments in favor of one’s obligation to pay taxes.

1. The justification for taxes is usually: the government provides these things which you should pay for because you use them.
2. Sometimes the justification is more sophisticated: if you didn’t pay for them, they wouldn’t be provided at all; it is necessary for all to pay so that some may benefit, the greater good and what-not.

For starters, does it matter why someone renounces citizenship? As a matter of equity and fairness, it ought not. A non-citizen is not using the government, is not “protected” by the government, and so on. But, whatever. I’m not going to belabor the merits of these arguments at present. I’m just going to conclude that for years, the government has essentially been saying that they don’t have to justify any level of taxation with even a pretense of benefit or obligation. (How’s that for “progressive”?)

If that hasn’t got you all worked up by now, it’s about to get a lot worse. If you don’t like it, maybe you should leave.

Except, you can’t.
You probably didn’t notice this little provision inserted into the Heroes Act of 2008, passed by Congress on June 17.

[A]nyone voluntarily giving up his or her citizenship will be taxed on ALL of his assets as if he or she had sold them — paying capital gains on assets that have increased in value, even though they have not been sold!
Does anyone still disagree when I say that Taxation is Theft? Can anyone, anywhere, honestly explain how this amounts to anything more than ransom for permission to live?

We don’t need a Berlin Wall to keep people enslaved. The government can simply expropriate their properties (a practice generally admonished by “civilized” politicians) and take whatever they damn please. This government, the Land of the Free government, has finally succeeded in erecting an imaginary wall that keeps everyone imprisoned. You can’t really leave, not anymore.

+++

#
1. The not inconsequential question of why one is obliged to move, simply because he does not like what others are doing to him, without his consent, and
2. As others have noted, pretty much every territory on earth is controlled by one state who wants to steal from me, or another, and is populated by citizens cut from the same cloth as the idiot who tells me to get out of this particular country.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

From the same author:
Taxation is Theft!
February 6, 2008

I notice that some people happen upon this blog by the following search query: “taxation is theft fallacy.” I’m unsure as to whether they are looking for evidence that the argument “taxation is theft” is a fallacy, or if they have some other motive for stringing those four words together in that order. Maybe they need an introduction to boolean search?

If it wasn’t theft, it wouldn’t be called a tax, it would be called a market transaction. Coca-cola doesn’t tax you in order to suppy you with soda, Nintendo doesn’t tax you in order to provide you with a Wii. Either you want these things, and value them more than other things you could buy, in which case you purchase them and fork over the cash—or you don’t want them, or don’t value them enough to justify their purchases in light of the opportunity costs. With taxes, generally a service is “provided” with little to no regard given to how much you actually use or benefit therefrom, or even whether you wanted it in the first place. And then you’re forced to pay. The fallacy is that taxes are somehow either justified and/or necessary, after all, we do need the police. Right?

Ask yourself a few questions:

1. Would you, under any circumstances, voluntarily purchase the services of a group of men whose jobs it would be to kill or kidnap you when you refuse to continue providing for their armaments and training?
2. Would you, under any circumstances, voluntarily purchase the services of an organization which states in no uncertain terms that in the event you decide to stop buying from them, you will forfeit your house?
3. What if an organization like one of the above tried to assert a claim against you? Would you submit your dispute for arbitration to an organization owned or operated by the very same individuals?

In case you’re not following, the organizations alluded to above are the police, the government-in-general (i.e., planners, lawmakers, figureheads, etc.) and the courts. Now ask yourself, which is the fallacy: “taxation is theft,” or “taxation is justified and necessary?”

Who will help the poor? What about our security?

Try again.

The house I am purchasing at the end of the month, property taxes alone amount to an additional 40% or so on top of the mortgage payment. For an extra 40% annually (probably far less than that) I could fortify the same house with bullet-proof lucite, gun-turrets, overhead sprinklers, a panic-room, an alarm and security monitoring system, and so on. I could hire a consultant to evalute areas in which I could reduce my exposure to riske (grounding the outlets, sealing the basement, etc.) I could mitigate whatever risk remains, with a robust insurance policy.

I already give up an enormous proportion of my salary in taxes. Adding property taxes to this mix will simply increase my burden. Add to that sales taxes, sin taxes, capital gains taxes, and depreciation due to inflation, and there isn’t very much left over. Some quick calculations (even assuming a generously low income tax burden of 25%) indicate that I’ll be giving up somewhere close to 60% of my income in explicit taxes and depreciation. This of course, does not account for the implicit taxes passed forward by the businesses who make and sell all of the things I buy. My true tax burden is probably nearer to 80%. Think about that. Tax Freedom day comes in November if you’re lucky.

Nobody has yet been able to satisfactorily explain how taxation is anything other than a ransom for permission to live.
http://nothirdsolution.com/2008/02/06/t ... -is-theft/
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Post Reply