Taxation Is Theft?

[Clem72]

Because of the previous question, I took this one to mean that the rate of taxation estimated with each check is based on gross minus state, and I was saying that is incorrect. When one files their federal, they take the W-2 state amount off of their federal income, so when Restitution's question was about $50,000 NET, that already included the $4,000 in state taxes. So, the $1,000 gotten back means that Restitution would have been taxed (essentially) on $51,000, not $46,000.

And I just assumed they mixed up the terms Net and Gross, which may not be unexpected from someone asking tax advice in this forum

 

[This_person]

And I just assumed they mixed up the terms Net and Gross, which may not be unexpected from someone asking tax advice in this forum

 

[thefuture093]

That's what I said, but I was being a bit facetious. The law allows it, and how it is handled is called "voluntary" in that you are not billed, but rather you fill out the forms and via your forms and you sending in part of your paycheck without challenge you are voluntarily paying your taxes. The alternate would be you getting a bill from the government, and then having to have an enforcement arm that gets the taxes not paid through billing that way.

I will concede that forms are voluntarily filed by the "tax payer", but I think the potential consequence that exist certainly compels people to file those forms.
So if we do not pay this "bill", then the government's enforcement arm will use acts of violence or coercion to obtain our money?

The owner owns it. By owning it, you acquiesce to paying taxes on it to pay for the infrastructure of the government that supports your ownership of it. If you fail to pay your taxes, the government will take the land from you as payment for those things it provides.

Ok, so the government does not own the land we live on and we are the just owners of such property. During the purchase process of property I'm not seeing where we acquiesce to pay taxes.
If this is true, then how could the government have a legitimate claim to take the land from us without our authorization?
Is the government not providing services without consent and then billing the citizen? Appears analogous to me buying you a car without your consent and then forcing you to pay for it.

 

[thefuture093]

Are you a sovereign nation person? They'll be able to explain it to you real well.

I do not identify as such and I'm actually relatively new to that term. From a quick google search I found that a sovereign citizen is....... "Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States."
If this is what you meant, then yes I don't see how people calling themselves government can claim to have a legitimate claim over myself and my property. Maybe you can help explain to me where I'm wrong.

 

[b23hqb]

I do not identify as such and I'm actually relatively new to that term. From a quick google search I found that a sovereign citizen is....... "Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States."
If this is what you meant, then yes I don't see how people calling themselves government can claim to have a legitimate claim over myself and my property. Maybe you can help explain to me where I'm wrong.

Not saying you're wrong with your answer at all, but these people are causing havoc in Fl with mountains of frivolous lawsuits and court proceedings. They are certainly extreme in the capacity of defying govt, for sure.

 

[This_person]

I will concede that forms are voluntarily filed by the "tax payer", but I think the potential consequence that exist certainly compels people to file those forms.
So if we do not pay this "bill", then the government's enforcement arm will use acts of violence or coercion to obtain our money?

I'm not sure about the "violence" part...but, yes, if you don't follow the law you will be punished for not following the law. Like all of the other laws (exception: your last name is Clinton).

Ok, so the government does not own the land we live on and we are the just owners of such property. During the purchase process of property I'm not seeing where we acquiesce to pay taxes.
If this is true, then how could the government have a legitimate claim to take the land from us without our authorization?
Is the government not providing services without consent and then billing the citizen? Appears analogous to me buying you a car without your consent and then forcing you to pay for it.

Well, what makes it "your" land? How does anyone know it is "your" land?

BTW, you consent to the services of the government by living in the country. For you to not receive the services of the government you must move to an area where said government does not exert its proper and just authority.

 

[thefuture093]

Not saying you're wrong with your answer at all, but these people are causing havoc in Fl with mountains of frivolous lawsuits and court proceedings. They are certainly extreme in the capacity of defying govt, for sure.

Of course each situation would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, but havoc could be a rather strong term if those individuals are seeking justice for being wronged by those calling themselves government.
I have no problem with civil disobedience, but do believe there are more effective ways to focus on changing the world.

 

[thefuture093]

I'm not sure about the "violence" part...but, yes, if you don't follow the law you will be punished for not following the law. Like all of the other laws (exception: your last name is Clinton).

The violence appears very evident in the punishment of the law. If you do not give those in government what they demand via taxes, then they will use escalating levels of force against you until you submit or they put you in jail.
The term "law" has been brought up several times. How do you define what a law is?
The current evidence shows that it is a demand by people calling themselves government, which is backed by the threat of punishment.

Well, what makes it "your" land? How does anyone know it is "your" land?

The most evident way to justly obtain property is through voluntary exchange. In this case you would know you owned it because you voluntarily exchanged with the previous owner is some sort of agreement where the ownership of the land was transferred to you.

BTW, you consent to the services of the government by living in the country. For you to not receive the services of the government you must move to an area where said government does not exert its proper and just authority.

You stated this before, but like I said merely purchasing property in a region which other people (government) claim to have the authority over is not a form of consent. You may be aware of the those claiming authority, but this is not consent unless they own the land you live on.
Where is the legitimacy for this "proper and just authority" that government claims over large regions of the world? I think this is the main focus. If we can find where people calling themselves government obtained their "authority" over these regions, then the legitimacy of governmental authority will be true.

 

[Clem72]

Well, what makes it "your" land? How does anyone know it is "your" land?

This is the salient point. It's your land because we all agree it is, and that agreement is part and parcel of our agreement to be members of society. If you decide you are not a member of our society, then I suppose you are not subject to that agreement, and you will need to protect "your" land by force of your own arms (against the sum total force of our arms..eg the police/military/etc).

 

[thefuture093]

This is the salient point. It's your land because we all agree it is, and that agreement is part and parcel of our agreement to be members of society. If you decide you are not a member of our society, then I suppose you are not subject to that agreement, and you will need to protect "your" land by force of your own arms (against the sum total force of our arms..eg the police/military/etc).

I would argue that the agreement is only relevant to the previous owner and the proposed new owner who is seeking to purchase the land. The rest of people of society are not involved in the interaction and have no bearing on the situation.

 

[Clem72]

I would argue that the agreement is only relevant to the previous owner and the proposed new owner who is seeking to purchase the land. The rest of people of society are not involved in the interaction and have no bearing on the situation.

I'm not sure I have the time or the crayons necessary to explain it to you. Suffice it to say that claim jumping and property theft was rampant before we had government oversight. If you believe you don't need the rest of "society" involved in your agreements, you better be prepared to protect your land and personal property from any and all who are not party to your existing agreement (ie every except the previous owner).

 

[thefuture093]

I'm not sure I have the time or the crayons necessary to explain it to you. Suffice it to say that claim jumping and property theft was rampant before we had government oversight. If you believe you don't need the rest of "society" involved in your agreements, you better be prepared to protect your land and personal property from any and all who are not party to your existing agreement (ie every except the previous owner).

You insult me yet, you have failed to even stay on the topic at hand. The discussion was regarding how we determine who owns land that you live on, not how you will protect it from illegitimate claims.

From the statements you've made, it appears you believe that other "members of society" need to be in agreement when a transfer of property occurs. If this is the case, then please explain to me why I need another individual outside of the exchange present in order for myself and another individual to voluntarily transfer our own property.

What do you even mean by "rest of society"? You speak of it as if it's one entity that can be physically present. Society, being a concept, does not physically exist; it cannot perform any action. Individuals are those that act, societies do not.

 

[Clem72]

You insult me yet, you have failed to even stay on the topic at hand. The discussion was regarding how we determine who owns land that you live on, not how you will protect it from illegitimate claims.

From the statements you've made, it appears you believe that other "members of society" need to be in agreement when a transfer of property occurs. If this is the case, then please explain to me why I need another individual outside of the exchange present in order for myself and another individual to voluntarily transfer our own property.

What do you even mean by "rest of society"? You speak of it as if it's one entity that can be physically present. Society, being a concept, does not physically exist; it cannot perform any action. Individuals are those that act, societies do not.

You are obviously on some strong medication. If you know of some way other than FORCE (or the threat of force) to keep unscrupulous people from taking something of value away from you, then by all means please share it with the world so that we can end all of the misery and strife.

Maybe we can send you to the middle east to explain to the Jews and Palestinians that they shouldn't be fighting, that they are all idividuals and don't actually belong to any societies, and they can just refer to the piece of paper that Mr. Netanyahu has (signed by Jesus) that says he owns Jerusalem.

 

[This_person]

The most evident way to justly obtain property is through voluntary exchange. In this case you would know you owned it because you voluntarily exchanged with the previous owner is some sort of agreement where the ownership of the land was transferred to you.

And, if I say I own your land? How do you prove it is yours? Let's say, for example, you have 20 acres, and I claim that 10 of those are mine because I have been camping there for ten days without your knowledge, and I claim "squatter's rights". How do you prove it is yours, and to whom do you need to prove it?

BTW, I am very heavily armed.

You stated this before, but like I said merely purchasing property in a region which other people (government) claim to have the authority over is not a form of consent. You may be aware of the those claiming authority, but this is not consent unless they own the land you live on.
Where is the legitimacy for this "proper and just authority" that government claims over large regions of the world? I think this is the main focus. If we can find where people calling themselves government obtained their "authority" over these regions, then the legitimacy of governmental authority will be true.

For the United States, it is in the Constitution. We, the people of the United States of America....do ordain and establish [the] Constitution..." We, the people, through our ancestors, established the means and manner of who governs us, how, and how they are limited in what they do. We, the people, reassert this authority over the government every other year as well as through our state governments (which also have people-established constitutions) having control over the Constitution.

In other words, the government is not "people claiming to have authority", it is actually people who have authority, and we gave it to them. If we don't like it, we have many redress procedures to follow.

The only way to be one's own country is to find land that no one claims authority over, and colonize it yourself. Now, you and you alone can claim to be the government. Otherwise, wherever you live there is an established and recognized authority.

 

[This_person]

I would argue that the agreement is only relevant to the previous owner and the proposed new owner who is seeking to purchase the land. The rest of people of society are not involved in the interaction and have no bearing on the situation.

But, this is not true. Your ownership of the land affects anyone around you. If you dump chemicals that get into the ground water, and the ground water is shared by others on their property, then there now needs to be an authority to control one person's acts of damage to another person. If you shine billion-candle lamps out from your land to protect you from intruders, you are damaging others. If you damn a river on your land, you rob people downstream of the water, and potentially cause much larger problems to people very far away (see how the Hoover Dam caused earthquakes in California).

Your land is not JUST your land.

 

[thefuture093]

You are obviously on some strong medication. If you know of some way other than FORCE (or the threat of force) to keep unscrupulous people from taking something of value away from you, then by all means please share it with the world so that we can end all of the misery and strife.

Haha, when did I ever state that the use of force or coercion in the name of self-defense is unjustified or illegitimate?

Maybe we can send you to the middle east to explain to the Jews and Palestinians that they shouldn't be fighting, that they are all idividuals and don't actually belong to any societies, and they can just refer to the piece of paper that Mr. Netanyahu has (signed by Jesus) that says he owns Jerusalem.

I do not understand your attempt at a counter-argument that societies do not physically exist and are merely conceptual.

 

[Clem72]

I do not understand

Noted.

 

[thefuture093]

And, if I say I own your land? How do you prove it is yours? Let's say, for example, you have 20 acres, and I claim that 10 of those are mine because I have been camping there for ten days without your knowledge, and I claim "squatter's rights". How do you prove it is yours, and to whom do you need to prove it?

BTW, I am very heavily armed.

Then, you are incorrect in your claim that you own the land that I freely traded for (This is assuming the land wasn't somehow stolen from you and then illegitimately sold to me.). The burden of proof is certainly upon you, not upon me. You would need to provide me with evidence that you are the true owner of the land. And if I refuse to accept your evidence and claims to my land, then the question is what do you do? I guess if you were to attempt to use violence against me for being on my own property, then I would use force as needed to stop the violence in the name of self-defense (or have someone provide this self-defense on my behalf). There are numerous ways in which this situation could be played out as you are aware. Most the possible solutions do not involve violence and likely is not the way this kind of interaction would play out.
These scenarios are almost always unrealistic and never provide any rationale for arguments being made; especially when used to attempt to legitimize government existence.

For the United States, it is in the Constitution. We, the people of the United States of America....do ordain and establish [the] Constitution..." We, the people, through our ancestors, established the means and manner of who governs us, how, and how they are limited in what they do. We, the people, reassert this authority over the government every other year as well as through our state governments (which also have people-established constitutions) having control over the Constitution.

"We, the people, through our ancestors".... From this statement, it appears that your version of consent is not individually based. Meaning someone can grant consent for someone else. Can you grant consent for someone else? If so, how?

In other words, the government is not "people claiming to have authority", it is actually people who have authority, and we gave it to them. If we don't like it, we have many redress procedures to follow.

Ok so we somehow gave them "authority" through a document written hundreds of years ago, but none of us individually consented. This appears to be an illegitimate contract.

The only way to be one's own country is to find land that no one claims authority over, and colonize it yourself. Now, you and you alone can claim to be the government. Otherwise, wherever you live there is an established and recognized authority.

Practically speaking, yes, this is true, but it is not my focus to find land where no one claims authority. I want to see the proof that those currently claiming to have authority over myself and my property is legitimate.

Is it possible for you to delegate a right that you do not have yourself?

 

[thefuture093]

Noted.

Please gather a coherent argument, come back, and try again.

 

[thefuture093]

But, this is not true. Your ownership of the land affects anyone around you. If you dump chemicals that get into the ground water, and the ground water is shared by others on their property, then there now needs to be an authority to control one person's acts of damage to another person. If you shine billion-candle lamps out from your land to protect you from intruders, you are damaging others. If you damn a river on your land, you rob people downstream of the water, and potentially cause much larger problems to people very far away (see how the Hoover Dam caused earthquakes in California).

Your land is not JUST your land.

Whether or not I justly own the land and whether or not I somehow cause damages to you or your property are two completely different things. They are two different interactions. Just because I own land does not mean that I will damage yours.
And yes of course if damages are incurred, then the dispute needs to be resolved. The resolution of disputes does not require "authority". Also, I want to make it clear that I am defining authority as the "right to rule".

My land is most definitely my land. Who else has a claim to it? (Of course assuming I have done no wrong to anyone or their property.)