New Hampshire Man Will Shoot Tax Collectors; Calls Come for Supporters
Ed Brown has received multiple felony convictions for income tax evasion. After trying to take up his case in court, he and his wife believe that federal agents will storm their 110 acre home, which is like a fortress complete with watch towers and its own supply of electricity should the government try to cut off the Browns' power.
According to Lauren Canario,
"In speech Ed Brown takes his ideals seriously. He explains his concepts of good and evil in a confident and patient tone, as if teaching an apprentice. He showed me the realistic paintings decorating his spacious home: a shining medieval knight bowing to be dubbed by a princess; a 19th century man and woman walking together; a mother and child that seemed illuminated by emotion rather than light. He seems to have lived his life believing chivalry, love and honor were possible, but now events have convinced him that he may have to die to uphold his ideals, and he accepts his possible violent fate with composure."
Others are coming to support Brown. Some with guns, others with cameras or signs in the event of another Waco massacre. Still others are sending letters of support, flags, and are writing the sheriff's office to ask the local police not to harm him.
It could be months before government agents try to enter his compound, since Brown is determined not to be taken to jail alive.
Here's a link to the story, which also has information on how to support Brown.
Here's a link to other developments as they occur.
Let's hope this all ends non-violently, and that the criminal invaders come to their senses before attacking an old man and his wife who question the legality of the income tax.
Comments (81)
This guy is great. A true American hero. This is what a hero and a patriot is, not someone who goes over to Iraq to murder people, but someone who's willing to die for his principles.
Go Ed Brown!
Hopefully, those in the State will show some humanity and decide not to murder this man, or engage in violence against him.
Published: January 27, 2007 8:27 AM
He has all the moral right to protect his property. I can only hope that no one gets hurt and that Mr. Brown retains his property.
Published: January 27, 2007 9:00 AM
While I think he has a moral right to do what he is doing, I wish he was not behaving the way he is: - he is assisting the Federal government's propaganda efforts.
The Federal government, like many criminal gangs, tries to pretend that it is a legitimate organization providing a voluntary service. The primary service they claim to be providing is to protect people from being preyed upon by dangerous or crazy people.
These standoffs inevitably result in a myriad of movies, stories, and news reports portraying the lantern-jawed, heroic defenders of the public risking their lives to protect the public from a dangerous loonie with a gun. It will allow the government to further equate "tax-protestor" with "dangerous armed lunatic" in the mind of the general public. By the time the revisionists begin to disassemble the fact from fiction, it will be too late - most people will only know the picture painted by the propaganda.
These standoffs are hurtful to the cause of freedom because the pro-freedom folks are not winning the propaganda war (yet).
With that being said, I too hope he manages to survive this assault upon him, and that he manages to hold on to his property.
Someday, hopefully within my lifetime, we will confuse our countrymen to take up the fallen banner of Captain Daniel Shays
Published: January 27, 2007 9:16 AM
Go libertarian hero.
Spanish ancaps are proud of you.
Still the land osf the braves and the free...
D - FENCE
;)
Published: January 27, 2007 9:17 AM
Aaargh! Stupid spell-checker (as well as the user controlling it)!
The last sentence should have read: Someday, hopefully within my lifetime, we will convince our countrymen to take up the fallen banner of Captain Daniel Shays
Published: January 27, 2007 9:19 AM
tarran,
I think what you are describing is the influence of copyright and the FCC on American media. Of course, the government is always going to try to describe any who oppose it as "kooks", but really it would be a shame if we allowed that to disuade us from standing up for our liberties.
I renember back during the davidian standoff, I told my friend that they were almost certinly going to kill all the families and children. He laughed at me. But on the day the building burnt down he was speechless, he didn't want to talk about it.
Published: January 27, 2007 11:06 AM
The feds will probably wait for the protestors to go home and gas the place when no one is paying attention.
This situation highlights a fact that those who believe in "compassionate" government would like to forget: That to support the income tax (and the leviathan state it pays for) is to support murdering people like Mr. Brown, who have never initiated violence against anyone, but who defend themselves from aggression by others.
Like everyone here, I hope this ends well, but Mr. Brown's actions may yet lay bare the true nature of the state for all to see.
Published: January 27, 2007 11:19 AM
I guess this really begs the question, What is the most effective way to secure our liberties?
Voting? Fighting? Anonymous or hidden assets? Move to the Bahamas where there is no income tax on residents? Live on a ship? Go to some 3rd world despot, where you could hire enough private security so that no one would mess with you?
I think standing up like this guy does, is just, but I'm not sure if it's the most effective cause the government controls the media machine and clearly outguns him.
Published: January 27, 2007 11:20 AM
The state should secede. Then no one would have to pay the federal government slave tax.
Published: January 27, 2007 2:04 PM
I hope that if there is fighting, it doesn't end in New Hampshire.
Published: January 27, 2007 2:17 PM
http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/
Published: January 27, 2007 2:24 PM
The world's going medieval. In the dying days of empire you need a castle in order to protect yourself from marauders.
Published: January 27, 2007 2:39 PM
Roy W. Wright,
"I hope that if there is fighting, it doesn't end in New Hampshire."
Maybe it'll give a little boost its neighbor to the west:
www.vtcommons.org
Published: January 27, 2007 2:53 PM
republicofnh.org
Published: January 27, 2007 8:46 PM
'Tis good to see that New Hampshire is doing the ultimate in Libertarian honesty. From Black Bloke's link it is quite clear that waiting for those in the U.S. Congress to see the light and change their ways isn't going to happen. Interesting since anyone can look at the original Libertarian intentions of the Founders of the U.S. and compare it with what's going on now makes it quite clear that what New Hampshire is doing the right thing though I doubt U.S. Government takes succession lightly just like last time . . .
Published: January 27, 2007 9:07 PM
Statists don't learn about property until you take theirs. They don't respect your property (yes, including your life) until you defend yourself from their aggressions. In other words, everything is a joke until the real world connection is made very obvious (literally felt) by them.
It is unfortunate that statists are so dense and, thus, resort to violence like two-year olds resort to temper tantrums. It is much more unfortunate that this requires peaceful and innocent people to defend themselves with equal force.
Published: January 27, 2007 10:23 PM
Tarran: "While I think he has a moral right to do what he is doing, I wish he was not behaving the way he is: - he is assisting the Federal government's propaganda efforts."
Good points, Tarran.
But not only that, from what I understand, this man is of record as having said, to the effect, “if you show me the law requiring me to pay, I will pay up.” This is a real waste since he’s risking everything, but in the process he’s supporting the damn pointless positivist argument that other tax-protesters—most notably Aaron Russo—are making.
I hate to see someone throw away their life when,
A) the income tax is immoral regardless whether or not there is legislation authorizing it, and insisting “show me the law and I’ll pay” is positivism and tantamount to justifying robbery, and,
B) the point is moot since we have a law. It’s called the Internal Revenue Code, ”…enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled’ and …‘approved’ (signed into law) at 9:45 A.M., Eastern Daylight Time, on August 16, 1954, and published as volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large.”
Again, I hope you don’t, but if you must become a martyr, take a stand against the principle of taxation, not against the fact that it isn’t “legal.”
Published: January 28, 2007 3:29 AM
Excellent point, Josh, as the truly princiipled stance is that one has no obligation to obey immoral laws.
On the other hand, the American people are so far from understanding that taxation is theft and that the state is therefore inherently unjust that little is likely to come of this, as the government can simply wait him out.
But then, all it took to set off World War I was the murder of an obscure arch-duke, so you never know. The American welfare-warfare state is at a tipping point regardless, and any number of seemingly insignificant events could push it over the top.
Published: January 28, 2007 8:13 AM
I beg to differ some D. White, taxes are only theft if those who don't want to pay are forced. If people voluntary pay taxes because as least they get infrastructure then so what? Of course, the standard reply would be that government has a self-made monopoly on infrastructure. However if breakaway places such as New Hampshire can show that infrastructure can be done by the free market then the voluntary payers might feel rather less voluntary.
Published: January 28, 2007 8:43 AM
Sam, so few would voluntarily pay taxes that no state could exist.
Published: January 28, 2007 8:53 AM
Then why aren't there continuous riots on the streets?
Published: January 28, 2007 8:56 AM
Sam, that could happen at virtually any moment, but as the state is nothing if not an endless propaganda machine -- how else could generations of Americans have been brainwashed into pledging allegiance to an "indivisible" nation that was founded on the exact opposite principle? -- the critical thinking that is necessary for the kind of action that Ed Brown is taking is so rare as to be functionally nonexistent.
But again, there could still be riots in the streets at virtually any moment, and with the Bush regime spinning out of control, who's to say that the the citizens of Vermont or some other state won't finally say enough is enough.
And if they do, there will be nothing that the US government will be able to do to stop them.
Published: January 28, 2007 9:22 AM
I think the reason there are not riots in the streets is that Americans have been brainwashed. They have been told for years to "pay 'your' taxes". They have been indoctrinated to accept the phrase "tax cheats". They are also distracted by the tactic of "we will reduce your taxes" instead of an honest declaration of "Taxation is theft. I will not support theft on any level". Plus, then you get into the masses of Americans who get a check from the kleptocracy monthly. They don't want the gravy train derailed, even when it is explained how it would put more real wealth back into their pockets. Perhaps Ed Brown will make a few people think about a government that is willing to kill for a pitance (in governmental terms).
Published: January 28, 2007 12:13 PM
If this tax protest does ignite a movement akin to the Whiskey Rebellion, the early 1930s tax strikes, etc., there is a way that the U.S. government could drain it through a "paperwork-rich" amendment to the Tax Code: shifting charitable contributions from tax deductions to 100% tax credits, with these provisos attached:
1. The federal government's budget divides up spending allocations into various categories. There are estimates prepared for not only the total budget, but also for spending in each category. Some charities duplicate the functions of the federal government in terms of intended amelioration of "social problems." Any tax-credit reform of the type sketched out above would limit the total amount of income tax deducted for charitable contributions to a percentage equal to the estimated percentage of government spending in that category.
Example: if education spending is estimated at 20% of the next budget, only 20% of total income tax due could be reduced (dollar for dollar) by contributions to a registered charity approved as an "education-substitute."
2. In order to qualify, an already-registered charity would have to jump through additional government hoops to qualify as an approved charity whose spending substitutes for federal government spending. Successfully meeting the mandated qualifications would put said charity on a list of approved charities for tax credits in a certain category. (Most likely, it would be "one charity, one category.") This classification would result in a list, which would be part of a form that the taxpayer would have to fill out - standard operating procedure for the tax-collection arm of the government, if memory serves.
Examples: a donation to an approved food bank, one whose name is on the corresponding list, would qualify for a tax credit in the "social welfare" category, as long as there are tax credits still available to the taxpayer for doing so. A donation to a charity hospital, including (I assume) one attached to a university, could qualify for a limited tax credit in the "health spending" category.
[One possibly unpalatable tax credit, which ties owners of federal government debt obligations into this general framework, is the option to forfeit interest payments due, on federal government debt owned by that same taxpayer, in exchange for a dollar-for-dollar reduction in income tax, up to zero tax paid for that tax year. To prevent it from being completely unpalatable, this tax credit would probably be prevented from being carried forward, to a future tax year, or carried back, to a past tax year. Note, though, that this particular change makes intuitive sense, provided that emotions don't interdict the thought process. Instead of receiving cash interest payment(s) on the federal-government debt instrument(s) you own, you receive a tax credit equal to the value of the interest payment on those debt instrment(s), at your option for each payment.]
Undoubtedly, there would be more provisos attached if such an idea gets enacted, but the principle behind it - that government program spending can be "privatized" though a limited ration of tax credits - is not only pro-libertarian, it also doesn't threaten the career prospects of government employees. There are a lot of them nowadays.
Theoretically, it suffers from two errors that mainstream macroeconomics is ridden with: confuting "jointly" with "severally," and taking estimates for known quantities. It would also leave certain parts of the government budget glaringly untouched, such as "general administrative expenses" and the defense budget. Furthermore, it is vulnerable to the ever-present political diddles that any reform is subject to. In its favor, though, it would encourage the taxpayer to take a closer look at the governmental budget estimates, and the governmental spending process period.
And, it can also be tried out at any level of government that collects income taxes.
Published: January 28, 2007 12:30 PM
Come on! The reality is that most people simply can't imagine doing without government--they pay their taxes because they see government as a necessary evil and taxes are naturally how government is funded.
Instead of tackling the tax issue head-on, we need to redirect people towards how their taxes are spent, and why it's not necessary or even bad for government to spend the tax money on the things and services it spends them on.
When enough people see how useless or damaging government spending is, there won't be a need to riot, because the politicians will respond to the public's demand for less government. Okay, maybe I'm dreaming about that last part. ;-)
Published: January 28, 2007 12:36 PM
Given that "native capital flight" is already well underway -- http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/tickfast.shtml -- and should grow exponentially as boomers retire, one would expect the growing tax burden on a middle class that is already hollowing out to reach the breaking point.
Indeed, one would expect that as the American welfare-warfare state exhausts itself, a tax revolt will ensue whereby our failed experiment in federalism is at long last brought to an end.
One would also expect it to be a tumultuous transition, however, that may have to endure an interim "North American Union" -- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50618 -- that will nonetheless be doomed to fail.
Published: January 28, 2007 1:09 PM
Michael A. Clem wrote: "Come on! The reality is that most people simply can't imagine doing without government..."
True enough, and they won't lose the habit unless they are shaken out of it (the national bankruptcy option) or are weaned off it (through something akin to the option I presented above.) The trouble with the former option is that some people who are given that "shock treatment" become desperate, or even dangerous.
As far as America is concerned: Franklin D. Roosevelt wound up pandering to that kind of person during the Great Depression, and he was far from the only political figure to do so. [Even Hoover did.] The case that "FDR saved capitalism" basically hinges upon the assumption that President Roosevelt euchred out the socialistically and fascistically-inclined cranks and hotheads back then. Even back in 1819, desperate men went to the government for bailouts. [ http://www.mises.org/story/1000 ] Given the scope and reach of government nowadays, the faction of desperate people will be much larger during the next crisis than any other already faced, or so I assume.
Admittedly, though, I could be kidding myself with respect to the practicality of the weaning option. "Reforms, Reforms!", as a political strategy, doesn't exactly have the best track record. :)
Published: January 28, 2007 4:29 PM
Isn't that a big point namely if places such as New Hampshire can show that certain Natural Monopolies which requires some sort of government aren't particularly natural or monopolistic, then the argument for government dissipates? But I'd like the alternative in actual action.
Published: January 28, 2007 7:15 PM
It would take pioneer types to do so, Sam, even with regard to such harmless and non-threatening activities as using a phone substitute or alternate means of procuring electricity. Only the kind of person who like pioneering for its own sake would have the fortitude to put up with the clunky, or kludgy, alternatives that would exist at the very beginning of such an effort. This is why so many users of solar power see its use as a political statement.
Published: January 28, 2007 8:36 PM
Concur, David C! Big Govt outguns you, no matter what; why not consider other options? I was thinking about this today after reading a popular survivalist site, about how you need, if the US "gets nuked" or otherwise breaks down, 1,000 rounds of ammo, 300 lbs. of wheat per yr/per person, 50 lbs. salt etc. All I could think was, if you survivalists really think this country is going down the tubes massively, why not find a peaceful home offshore, live on a yacht, etc?
Published: January 28, 2007 10:28 PM
Isn't that a case of what it takes? If you don't like the nation you live in and can't find reasonable alternative then you have to create your own nation? Indeed didn't it take pioneer types to leave the Old World for the good ol' U.S.A. and start anew? They wanted to create freedom in a new land than wait around endlessly hoping the Old World Nations would change their ways? Even if in the short-term living standards might technically be better in the Old World? But in the interest of a seceded state becoming a separate sovereign nation in the their own right they have the issue of defending themselves against other sovereign nations (you know the example what-if story of a U.S. state seceding and being invaded by the U.S. to reclaim that land anyway).
Published: January 28, 2007 10:53 PM
Mr. Ed Brown is in fact correct in his opinion that Federal Income Tax does not apply to the natural born citizens of the Several states, only to the naturalized citizens of the United States.
Very different citizenship status. The United States Supreme Court recognizes at least four definitions of United States. the naturalized citizenship occurs at the 14th amendment, when coupled with the Federal Rules of "Civil" or for that matter "Criminal" Procedure conspire to make people "persons" of statute. The Supreme law of the land, if you ask anyone including judges it is said to be the constitution. This is where Ed's argument goes a little of center, because to claim Constitutional or common law relief you must find the correct "code" to claim your rights. What he does not know is his rights are only claimable at the Uniform Commercial Code. Make's no sense, lets move on.
The United States Constitution is no longer an applicable form of law in the United States, (or I should say it's courts) it is pure law "uncolored". When the Government changed from a Constitutional system of "Money" to a make believe system called the "Federal Reserve banking system" the law had to allow for a colored "legal tender". So, this colored law, The rule of law often referred to by President Bush known as the U.C.C. had to be written. It runs parallel to the now upstaged Constitution. And controls all aspects of your life, know it or not. U.C.C. 1-308 is your answer,
§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.
The U.C.C. doesn't acknowledge the sovereignty of the people or the Bill of Rights. It only deals with paper. So how do you go from 'Statue equity back to Bill of rights?
U.C.C. §1-103.6 is your “recourse” into the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. It states that the Code (U.C.C.) must be in harmony with the Common Law , as follows:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law , which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law , unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law …The code cannot read to preclude [prevent or exclude] a Common Law action.”
You can study the Code at...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html
How do we know this is true?
The Legislative History of the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, P.L. 89-719, explains that the entire taxing and monetary systems were placed under the Uniform Commercial Code. The U.C.C. is the code that regulates all negotiable instruments. It was previously called the Law Merchant and the Negotiable Instrument Law.
The United States is comprised of two classes of people CEDITORS and DEBTORS.
When a Judge says "Civil" do you think he is referring to "Constitutional" 7th amendment civil...not a chance. He is referring to "Roman Civil" law. That law stands today 6000 ... yes THOUSAND years later. Compelled performance remember under "pure" law (constitution) you can not be jailed for debt.
This is why you must "Volunteer" to pay taxes and no judge can show you the law requiring you to pay Federal Income Taxes. The fact is- there is none. As one reply suggested that the tax "code " is that law. Wrong. The judge in this case REFUSED the challenge by Mr. Brown who said "show me the law and I will write you a check."....... It does not exist. That challenge seems a reasonable alternative to a full blown trial, does it not? And the federal prosecutor did not scurry across the court room floor and say here you go Mr. Brown and point to that law in his little federal prosecutors book. A sham start to finish.
Mr. Brown did give jurisdiction to the court by entering a plea.. He should have demanded a true bill at U.C.C. 3-501. that would have settled the dispute, or as we call it "Verification of the debt"
§ 3-501. PRESENTMENT.
(a) "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee.
(b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties, and clearing-house rules and the like:
(1) Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and must be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors.
(2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.
(3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary endorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.
(4) The party to whom presentment is made may treat presentment as occurring on the next business day after the day of presentment if the party to whom presentment is made has established a cut-off hour not earlier than 2 p.m. for the receipt and processing of instruments presented for payment or acceptance and presentment is made after the cut-off hour.
By pleading he gave the judge the opportunity to "interpret the law and also decide what "facts" the jury will be allowed to review. He did not stand a chance..... Not the Constitutional requirement that the Jury will "determine the facts and the application of the law",Commercial Court, Colored law , COMMERCIAL RESPONCE.
This all seems strange I know, but then again most people when asked what system of government we have they will almost always say a Democracy and not Republic.
Ed still has options open to him however the clock is ticking.
Before leaving you lets take another look at that wonderful concoction known as the 14th amendment. And what it has to do with you and commercial law? The amendment goes on to say that the "PUBLIC" debt shall not be questioned. Now look at any dollar bill and you will read Federal Reserve Note when you learn what that "instrument" in you pocket represents. you will know the fraud that plagues us all..All us good SUBJECT CITIZENS...
Published: January 28, 2007 11:31 PM
Sam. I'm thinking every generation of freedom needs a frontier. At one time it was the new world, at another it was the western states, right now I think it is "cyberspace", but eventually people will need to secure their physical liberties again too. I'm thinking that the next generation of freedom is out at sea, perhaps like the seastead project, (seastead.com). Projects like the free state project will probably work for awhile, but IMHO there is no getting around the coercive power at the federal level over the long haul. In fact, out of 50 states why did they decide to make an example out of this guy in NH? Perhaps it's because they don't want to deal with a state asserting any "states rights", they don't want to deal with any competition from a "free" state.
Anyhow, because residence at sea is mobile, and there is no road infrastructure that can be easially controled by government, and so on - I think the sea is a game changer. Once free trade and economic self sufficiency emerge out of the ocean, it will take a life of it's own. And once it takes a life of it's own it will eventually grow in power and influence till it can't be stopped by any navy, tax treaty, or coast guard.
Published: January 29, 2007 12:07 AM
The most amazing part of this to me is that our benevolent protectors will literally sacrifice their lives to stop this person who is nothing but stubborn.
If you are an IRS or FBI or local law enforcement agent, is your life really worth 20000 in taxes and maybe 100000 in fines?
In these terms I wonder who is kookier?
Published: January 29, 2007 8:26 AM
The reason there has been no rioting in the streets is threefold,
1) Most taxes are now taken before the individual sees it. People still think in terms of making gross when they're comparing themselves to the Jonses, but they are actually living on at least 70% of that. And what they never see, they don't appear to miss.
2) It is stated in the media that the average credit card debt per holder in the US is ~$10,000. That's an awful lot of personal, non-durable consumption built up over the last decade and half. People are on a spending high. Along with this, credit to buy housing has become much more lax, and people are extending themselves mightily on their mortgages, but they feel good about their digs, so why riot?
3) Governements are still getting by on taking ~25% of the GDP in taxes (again most of which is taken from individuals before they see it), and financing the rest. They also have made a boatload of unfunded promises to people that have yet to come due.
So the people are satiated, by and large, and the government is getting along with smoke and mirrors.
But very soon, those credit cards are going to be called, and taxes are going to have to go up sharply, and people are going to be squeezed mercilessly. By my layman's view, there seems to be only one "production pie", the maximum GDP possible, and more claims against it than it can support, paying off government promises, paying off secured and unsecured debt, and having a reasonably thriving "current economy", that is people producing, consuming, and building base equity.
When people are laboring away to pay taxes and previous spending, and getting rationed health care, and the government is called on to interfere even more (out of fairness) and the incentives to produce (by both holders of productive assets AND laborers) are nil, then people most certainly are going to look to blame someone. That's when the pitchforks come out.
Unfortunately, this isn't the era of the Whiskey rebellion when the odds, though in favor of the Federales, were a little more even. What is one going to do against predator drones and unmanned tanks?
Published: January 29, 2007 11:01 AM
From: http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=Brown%20Trial :
The reason lawyers won't take the case, experts say, is because the Browns' position has no basis in [positivist] law, and making such arguments could get an attorney sanctioned or disbarred.
See how the state makes it so a person cannot even defend themselves (even assuming the state's courts have some measure of legitimacy)? A lawyer has to shoot themself in the foot and destroy their career to defend someone. This necessarily turns lawyering into a state conservation profession, since a lawyer is effectively barred from questioning the legitimacy of the state. The same thing happens with lawyers telling juries about nullification.
I know the California State Bar requires lawyers to take an oath "to protect the constitution" rather than to work for justice. Of course, it is a constitution that has not been consented to, and it is a constitution that has its interpreters (judges and guvmint lawyers) paid by the guvmint. Unfortunately, that (lawyering and courts) which should be one of the last bastions of freedom ends up simply reinforcing the state.
Published: January 29, 2007 1:49 PM
David C.: It's somewhat of a pity that Robert A. Heinlein never wrote Ocean Ranger. If you're serious about such a venture, the survivalist wing of the Green movement may offer some tenchiques that would make it work.
I add a general cautionary note, though, for any such proposals, whether sea-bound or not: if one depends upon tax-haven status to make it pay, it should be considered whether or not the "rich tax resistor" class functions as something of a deus ex machina for it. Tax resistors tend to prefer tax havens with traditions of respecting individual privacy, with well-established, if limited, States that already have a long tradition of probity with respect to private funds. One question that any sensible tax haven seeker will ask is, "what apparatus is around to prevent me from being robbed? I can't exactly call the police in my home locale if I am stolen from down there - especially if one of your own boys decides to take a skinny-dip into my money."
Published: January 29, 2007 3:50 PM
Sam, those new nations tend to survive because they're seen as not worth conquering by already-existing States. Given the present interest in the U.S. as well as NATO, in counterinsurgency techniques, to fight enemies who rely upon what William S. Lind has called "Fourth-Generation Warfare," the advantage is at least potentially shifting towards present-day established States becoming better at conquering any breakaway republic.
My own guesstimate does differ from Mr. Lind's analysis, in this way: I fear that the U.S. military will become rather good at beating Fourth Generation opponents, up to the point where the U.S. military will let its more conventional, land-centered, tactical responses erode. This is the same pattern of atrophy that got the U.K. military deeply humbled at the start of World War 1.
Published: January 29, 2007 4:02 PM
Well two responses come to mind D. Ryan:
1. If I was to presume a U.S. State seceding from the Union to become a separate nation - then the U.S. government may not care economically at the individual state level, one state, not big loss. But what if it gives incentive for other States to think likewise and U.S. would care if it leads to the breakup then formation of 50 separate sovereign nations.
2. When some folk want to separate from a main nation and become a separate sovereign nation then they join the 'anarchy of nations' issue. Namely anyone could invade them and they can't presume any other sovereign nation would automatically help them. Especialy more so in the international waters where modern pirates roam and these seafarers have been reported as showing no mercy or respect for others.
Published: January 29, 2007 8:21 PM
Sam:
With regard to response #1: what you discussed is basically what started the Civil War. (The state that started Southern secession off was South Carolina.) An assessment of "they're not worth keeping," or "we're better off without them," is a subjective one, from which the assessor can be swayed.
With regard to #2: you're absolutely right. When a new nation is on its own, it's on its own. "Sovereignty under a protectorate" is not genuine sovereignty; it's either clipped wings or else it's a free ride, which'll not only come to an end later, but will wind up with wings clipped more completely, as done with the thoroughness of prior experience.
If you're interested, the British aristocracy has a title level corresponding to kings (in English lands) who had agreed to surrender their sovereignty in exchange for the protection of the now-U.K. throne and government: it's earl. The name derived from the Old English word jarl, meaing a small but nevertheless sovereign king in English lands. Formally, though, an Earl is a personal representative of the U.K. Sovereign, which makes that title equal in rank and function to count.
Published: January 29, 2007 9:30 PM
FWIW, jarl is a Norse word; the Englisc (Old English) equivalent, deriving from Danish, is eorl (the native Saxon equivalent would be ealdormann - modern alderman), which is certainly used for non-sovereigns.
Published: January 29, 2007 10:31 PM
So when Libertarians are talking about property rights ownerships? Are saying they want complete individual sovereignty for the individual to be from taxes, statutes and constitutions? Or are they prefer a derivative-style of property rights, in other words, there's the overall nation which has the sovereignty rights but the ideal nation presumably a constitution and everything else is privatised?
Published: January 30, 2007 8:06 AM
Sorry for the lack of proofread, the last question should read:
Or do they prefer a derivative-style of property rights, in other words, the overall nation has the sovereignty rights but the ideal nation has a constitution and property owners who live by the constitution and everthing is privatised?
Published: January 30, 2007 8:10 AM
As far as I know, Sam all libertarians believe that individual rights are inherent in the individual human being. This principle is justified with arguments varying in philosophical depth, depending upon the kind of libertarian, but all libertarians believe that collective rights, including the "rights of nations," are either outright mythical or are a sloppy way of expressing rights derived from individuals. No libertarians, that I know of, believes that the government has any primary rights at all.
To Peter: Thanks for the correction, and for the additional information.
Published: January 30, 2007 9:18 AM
The seasteading website should be seastead.org not .com
Published: January 30, 2007 12:06 PM
Well, D. Ryan, I wanted to know the difference between the two types of property rights as they would make for different outcomes in practice. If people had full sovereignty rights over their property then they'd become official Monarchs with their own constitution and diplomatic dealings with other nations/neighbours. However where no would the place for even private police, courts and punishment institutions. Since few are fond of the U.N. why would lil Monarchs necessarily engage in treaties and international private agencies? Indeed depending on how much you own it might be safer (cheaper?) in the long run to have your own policing system. And similarly even if some lil nations adhere to a international agreed police force then they'd still have no say on a self-policing Monarch who might have his own rather brutal notion of justice on those who violate his realm lest there'd diplomatic not-niceties leading even perhaps to a war.
I don't know I'd think many Libertarians might prefer to adhere to a overall nation with a threadbare constitution and private enforcement agencies rather than go back to first principles.
Published: January 30, 2007 2:51 PM
Sam
Good point. You don't know.
A soverign individual is going to deal with other people (unless he is a complete hermit). In his dealings he will need to consider how it is those other people should be treated and how that will be of benefit to him. While he retains soverignty over himself and his property, he has no soverignty over them. All parties therefore interact and trade on a voluntary basis, as they must (and as is most usually the case between individuals presently- except when govt intervenes in some fashion). The issue of force arises only when an individual initiates it against others. Then retribution may be required. At that point one or more individuals may determine that it is in their best interests to seek the services of an agency to sort out problems being caused by an intiator of force (they do this in exactly the same way that they may decide to seek the services of any other service provider or they may do it themselves). Since the party initiating force has chosen to ignore the concept of individual rights and the soverignty of others, he has no argument against retributive force being applied against him. The other individuals can take sanction against him. He has no right to prevent it and they have no need to seek his consent, just as he did not seek their consent when he initiated force against them.
The talk of Monarchs and constitutions is just you being boorish. I suggest you quit the nonsense and take a serious look at the material presented free on the Von Mises Institute. The works of Von Mises, Rothbard and others are all available to you at no charge. The issues you bring up are argued and and dealt with from first principles and they are discussed exhaustively and thoroughly. If you really are serious about learning about Libertarianism and the Austrian School the material is all there. It is also to be recommended you check out Prof Reisman's Jefferson School website and read his book, "Capitalism."
Sione
Published: January 31, 2007 11:50 AM
Gee Sione Vatu if a bloke owns a series of rental properties does he any rights to make rules on how would-be renters should live in any of his home? Could he have rules like no drugs, alcohol or smoking? No loud music, fire crackers or large parties? Anyone who can't peacefully abide by his neighbours but rather prefers to annoy and bicker gets kicked out too? Is the owner simply using his property rights or is he infringed on the rights of the renters to live more or less how they like?
Published: February 2, 2007 6:46 AM
Well Gee Sam
I've answered that already. Wipe your chin, put your finger on the words and read them very carefully.
I wrote about the situation where an individual has soverignty over himself AND his property (property- did you get that bit? OR were you sleeping?). I also discussed what would occur in the event of an initiation of force. That was in response to your ravings about lil Monarchs and constitutions and the implication that soverign individuals couldn't deal with each other in the absence of third party authority. Your latest questions were already answered. Go reread.
This is part of a site maintained by the Von Mises Institute, an organsiation that teaches Austrian School Economics. One would expect you to avail yourself of the material freely available from the site rather then barging in, all puff and ignorance, raving on about issues that have been long since addressed (in a fundamental and thorough manner) or are irrelevant or trivial or simply silly.
How about reading some of Von Mises or Rothbard or Reisman or Hoppe? There's plenty there to get into.
Sione
Published: February 2, 2007 1:01 PM
I agree with Sione, Sam. I've been following this blog for some time now, and since you've begun posting here I don't think you've raised a single question that wouldn't easily be answered by engaging some of the basic source material.
You could even do a search and find some daily articles on most topics pertaining to economics.
'Man, Economy, State' and 'Human Action' are both very easily navigated; so are 'For a New Liberty' and 'The Ethics of Liberty.'
You have to understand that, to the Mises blog readers, this pop-in-the-door-and-say "well what about privatized roads -- how would that work?" or "well what about defense?" is really no new phenomenon. Recently we had a guy on here named 'Don Robertson' who claimed to have written the most important work in philosophy in 1,000 years.
We've had people come here before and say things like "but what do you do in a room if you are the only libertarian? Force everyone else to be one at the point of a gun?" and so on.
With 20 minutes of reading a day for a month you could familiarize yourself enough with Austrian economics to answer about 90% of the questions that I've seen you ask. I can't encourage you enough to go take a look at some of the basic works of Mises, Rothbard, et. al.
Published: February 2, 2007 3:05 PM
Bah humbug. To quote Eric Cartman: 'screw you guys I'm going home -->'.
What is Libertarianism than propertarianism resurrected? Throw in full sovereign rights to property owner and you have lords and monarchs all over again. No wonder Libertarians have been extolling the virtues of Monarchs! The thought of profitable propertied people ruling the unpropertied masses must be misty-eyed end game to Libertarians.
Screw it. I've got nothing more to say. I'm blogging off. Toodles! :|
Sam - the dumb-lucky Liberal spineless twerp.
Published: February 3, 2007 4:13 AM
To Sam:
"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
--Samuel Johnson
Published: February 3, 2007 4:35 PM
I regret not being here earlier to answer Sam's question, but here goes a stab at all of the objections that Sam left:
It is possible that, under an anarchist society, any property owner can call him- or herself Soveriegn over the land he or she owns. But what good would it do? The only right that could be called a 'sovereign right' in this context, would be the "Right of No Trespass." That's all. Going beyond that, with respect to anyone who is not on his or her property, involves such a person going down the royal road to facing retaliation if he or she be the aggressor.
As far as Sam's note that such property owners could wind up "lording it over" anyone else living or working on their property, that too would be restrained by the doctrine of non-aggression. People have to work somewhere and live somewhere, 'tis true. People do not, though, have to live and work somewhere specific. The "right to exit" is absolute, provided that the exiter takes nothing with him or her that he or she doesn't own. So, if such a pattern develops, competition will ensue. Housing isn't always a seller's market, and labor services aren't always buyer's markets - not by a long shot.
In addition, even if a polity of millions of monarchs springs up, the people who are not 'sovereigns' will find out what the intellectuals of monarchical Europe found out - the more sovereigns there are, the more ways exist to play them off against each other.
Published: February 3, 2007 5:53 PM
I just want to show my support for mr. Browns noble protest. There is nothing more important then protecting our freedom and liberties and I thank him for what he is doing. He is a true American.
Published: February 22, 2007 10:14 AM
Your signature on tax documents such as the 1040 tax return is not something you should take lightly. The treasury department knows this so they placed a "legal notice" at the bottom left corner of the 1040 tax return. Have you ever noticed it? It says "For Disclosure, Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see page 80 or whatever page of the instruction book that the actual "NOTICE" appears for that year . You are being put on "NOTICE" that you should understand that you are signing a document wherein you have placed information about your personal finances that you believe to be true and correct to the best of your "KNOWLEDGE" and "BELIEF" and signed under the penalty of perjury. Not something that should be done without a complete understanding of why this "NOTICE" exist in the first place.
Next we go to the actual Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act "NOTICE" in the 1040 instruction book. Here we see that the IRS says that their legal right to ask for information is found in three section of the Code. Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012(a) and their regulations.
The IRS is bound to comply with the requirements of Sec. 1320.7(f), 1320.12, 1320.13, and 1320.14 of 5 CFR part 1320 and title 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA). as can be seen in the regulations at 26 CFR 602.101.
Found on the inside pages of the last part of the Internal Revenue Code Regulations part 600 to end is an explanation of the purpose of assigning OMB control numbers to forms such as the 1040 tax return.
OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires
Federal agencies to display an OMB control number with their information
collection request. Many agencies have begun publishing numerous OMB control numbers as
amendments to existing regulations in the CFR. These OMB numbers are
placed as close as possible to the applicable recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.
These OMB control numbers are published at 26 CFR part 602.101, along the right side of colums which list the regulations requiring record keeping or reporting. In 1994 the list included sec. 1.1-1 on the list. The very regulation where the income tax is imposed.
The number assigned to sec.1.1-1 is 1545-0067 that number is found only on the form 2555 Foreign Earned Income.
Remember the explanation says that theses control placed as close as possible to the applicable record keeping or reporting requirements!!
After 1994 section 1.1-1 was omitted from the list to hide the truth
26 CFR (4-1-94 Edition)
CFR part OMB Control No
1.1-1 ........ 1545-0067
1.23-5........ 1545-0074
1.6012-0...... 1545-0067 The IRS states in the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice that their authority to ask the public for information is 26 USC 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) and their regulations. While 6001 and 6011 relate to any tax imposed by the Code, Section 6012 is exclusive to Subtitle A Income Taxes.
Notice 1.6012-0 above has the same OMB control number as section 1.1-1 Current listing as of March 8 2007 1.6012-1........... 1545-0067.
There is only one other place in the listed regulations that has the assigned OMB control number 1545-0067 and that place list section `1.911-1 through 1.911-7 United States citizens living abroad
1.911-1......... 1545-0067
1.911-2...........1545-0067
1.911-3...........1545-0067
1.911-4...........1545-0067
1.911-5...........1545-0067
1.911-6...........1545-0067
1.911-7...........1545-0067
Published: March 11, 2007 7:23 AM
The OMB control mumber on the form 1040 is 1545-0074 not 1545-0067 and the from requried to be filed by regulations in title 26 is form 2555 Foreign Earned income with OMB control number 1545-0067.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=edd62c24114ce71ae5b7b574e32fbeb7&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:20.0.1.1.3.0.3.1&idno=26
Here is the link to the governments web page showing that the regulation 1.6012-1 (this is the reg reqiring tax returns for Sub title A income tax) assinged OMB control number 1545-0067 form 2555 foreign earned income! Also see section 1.911-1 through 1.911-7 the regulation about United Satates citizens living abraod. Here too the reg 1.911-1 has the same OMB as section 1.6012-1
Published: March 11, 2007 7:38 AM
Here's what I really don't understand about Libertarians and they're hostility toward taxes, and I hope someone can help me with this.
Lets say the IRS is a scam, and we all come to that realization and we get rid of it. Fine.
But what you guys really believe is that nobody can forcibly tax you on anything, ever. Right? Your problem isn't really with the IRS, it's with the fundamental nature of taxation.
But to live in a modern society, society can force you to pay tax, or it can expel you from society, right? If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to benefit from the services tax money provides. The Brown's have benefitted from the rest of our tax dollars, but they feel they were obligated to contribute. That's not philosophy, it's arrogence.
If you don't want to pay taxes, don't. Just don't use my roads. Get your kids out of my schools. Don't ever call the cops, and if your house burns down, don't call the FD. Get off the city water grid, and the city power grid. I don't see how you could ever buy anything, because the physical dollars you spend were printed using tax dollars. The credit cards you have were shipped to you using the United States Postal Service, subsidized by tax dollars. As I see it, you have only the one choice. You pretty much have to leave. But, again, don't drive on our roads on the way out, and you really can't use the airport either. You can probably use a boat, but if you have a problem, don't call my Coast Guard.
Standing up to the government, like Mr. Brown is doing, is not just. The Constitution says all men are created equal. The laws apply equally to all. You can make all the arguments you want about the IRS, but if we all decide that we want the things that taxes provide, and you want the benefits too, you need to chip in.
Published: April 6, 2007 8:26 PM
Cougian: So the tax dollars keep the air clean, so we shouldn't breathe either.
Published: April 6, 2007 9:22 PM
Cougian:
Well, lets turn your argument around. Since the welfare kings and queens DON'T pay any taxes, then maybe they should stop drawing their welfare checks. Maybe they should keep their worthless asses off the streets and parks.
MY money is appropriated from me by force and given to human refuse and p*ssed down the gutter by worthless beauracrats. So pardon me if I don't happily and joyfully dance as I hand over my money to government.
But I will tell you what. If government limits its actions to protecting liberties and enforcing contracts, I will at least be neutral at handing over my tax assessment.
Published: April 6, 2007 9:23 PM
"But what you guys really believe is that nobody can forcibly tax you on anything, ever. Right? Your problem isn't really with the IRS, it's with the fundamental nature of taxation."
In a way, I think your statement accurately strikes at the heart of the matter. The fundamental nature of taxation (i.e. robbery) is immoral.
"But to live in a modern society, society can force you to pay tax, or it can expel you from society, right?"
If the protection money (i.e. "taxes") is not turned over to these people, they will eventually send hit men who will murder you if you try to defend yourself. Alternatively, there will be a home invasion, you will be kidnapped, and you will be thrown in a rape room for several years. If you truly wish to understand libertarianism, it may be useful to think about your use of the word "society". An entity called "society" committed none of the acts outlined in the scenario which I described above. As a theoretical example, Person A would unjustly kick down the door of Person B. Nowhere is this "society" evident in the example provided.
"If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to benefit from the services tax money provides. The Brown's have benefitted from the rest of our tax dollars, but they feel they were obligated to contribute. That's not philosophy, it's arrogence."
'Contribution' implies choice. However, taxation is robbery; there is no choice involved. If you feel that freedom is better than violence, you may wish to learn more about the effectiveness and morality of economic solutions which are based on choice. I am sure there are others on this board who can recommend some literature. A good place to start would be Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson".
It's also worth noting that the "services" provided to the Browns in the forms of roads, police, etc. are usually inefficient monopolies, entirely misdirected, and riddled with corruption, although that's hardly the point. The real point is that the service doesn't justify the crime. A rapist cannot throw a wilted bouquet of roses at his victim and consider himself virtuous.
Published: April 6, 2007 9:52 PM
"If you don't want to pay taxes, don't. Just don't use my roads. Get your kids out of my schools. Don't ever call the cops, and if your house burns down, don't call the FD. Get off the city water grid, and the city power grid."
Cougin, if this is truly your position... you are a libertarian! Congratulations! This is exactly what we want - freedom from violence. Let each of us choose who we do business with whether it's a fire department, a restaurant, or a road owner. Welcome aboard!
Published: April 6, 2007 10:04 PM
Cougian: yes, libertarians consider involuntary taxation to be theft, but it really goes deeper than that. The government "provides" all these services, but usually they also prevent people from seeking or providing viable alternatives. That's why it's not so easy to just say "no" to government services. Go ahead, try to build your own private roads, electrical systems, etc. and see how far the government lets you go.
Even in areas where they don't literally restrict competition, as in the case of schools, you aren't allowed to opt out of paying for it, as you suggest. You pay taxes that go to public schools, and then if you want your children to go to a private school, you have to pay extra.
So the taxation issue is more than just being forced to pay for unwanted services, it's also about what services government should provide in the first place, and why people think that private industry and organizations cannot provide these services.
Published: April 6, 2007 10:08 PM
Well quite frankly, thanks to modern technology and globalisation, you might see something surprising: government are soon going to have to compete against other governments to stop their most productive citizens from going to the ones with the best deals. It's usually called the 'brain drain'. Similarly in truly repressive powers there are likewise other people who choose to leave at all costs seeking a better life, usually they're called 'refugees'.
If the U.S.A is seriously going down the crapper and turning into fascist dictatorship, then why not get out while the going's good?
The website here -
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/topten.cfm
- shows that Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia are economic freer than the U.S.A. Hence you DO have a choice!
But of course you don't want government per se means you have to find an untouched piece of land, go back to first principles and have another go at rebuilding society. I think the African continent is probably the most likely place to find plots of land without any governance or sovereignty . . .
Published: April 6, 2007 11:01 PM
Only the most inhospitable and remote lands in the world haven't yet been appropriated under the flag of one government or another. "Leave or die" strikes me as a rather cold way to respond to someone who is being victimized by thugs.
No, moving to a government-free land is not a viable alternative nor does it lessen the depravity of the crime of taxation. If the local mafia threatens the small business owner to pay protection money, to comment that the business owner may move to another mafia controlled territory or to die on a desert island is bullying at best. We each have a moral right to be free from the aggressions of others. The moral premise implicit in the positions of those who disagree is almost too horrible to consider: that each of us has a right to aggress against our fellow man because our victims can always move elsewhere.
There is no moral justification for a gang to have a territorial monopoly of violence. A property owner who chooses to stay and peacefully affect change rather than starve on a desert island is not only virtuous but soundly sane.
Published: April 6, 2007 11:51 PM
Oh bullcrap, Jon. That's sounds awfully like some right-wing Marxist rubbish. If I were to complain about bad service and unfair prices from a apartment owner you'd tell me to that there's no problem as long I can go to another apartment complex. The loss of renters would cause the rude guy to change his behaviour before even more leave and he'd go broke. Competition good? Right? You wouldn't listen to me saying the apartment owner should sell off his apartment to individuals so they can live they way they want to.
In the old days moving between nations was extremely difficult and expensive, if not illegal. Nowadays the barriers are falling apart, hence government are going to become increasing pressured to compete and make sure that the world's most productive citizens will want to stay with them. And it's most likely that the most productive citizens are going to want the least amount of taxation and regulation.
Published: April 7, 2007 12:54 AM
Well, let's explore your theory. When you say that person A (apartment owner) "should" sell his property so that person B can live in the manner of his choosing, are you stating this as a fact (morality) or as an opinion? If it's a casual opinion like "red is better than blue", who cares? If you are stating this as a matter of fact, it doesn't hold up to even a cursory analysis.
People have a right to each other's property until they are living the way they want to, eh?:
a. The words "the way they want to" injects a subjective factor into the moral premise which invalidates it entirely. Since "living they way the want" is an arbitrary distinction it is not universal, and therefore falls outside of the bounds of morality.
b. The assertion creates a paradox and thus fails the crucial moral test of non-contradiction. If Person A (the person who "wants")steals everything from Person B (say, Bill Gates) in order to satisfy his wants, Person B now has the immediate moral right to steal everything back from person A. Thus, the act of the fulfillment of one's moral right violates the moral right of the other person.
c. The assertion also causes quite a bit of moral hypocrisy for it's proponents. This doesn't invalidate your assertion, but it certainly undermines your argument. Somewhere out there, someone wants your computer in order to "live the way they want to". According to your own moral creed, you should immediately sell your belongings to that others may live in the manner of their choosing. In fact, strangers have the "right" to break down your door and take it if they wish. Of course, being a highly principled and caring person, you wouldn't resist because it would be wrong :) Until you act on your own principles, I find it difficult to take your position seriously. If you're trying to communicate that sound doesn't exist, it's usually best not to shout it.
Published: April 7, 2007 9:51 AM
Ed Brown is fighting for everyone by fighting for himself. Therefore he will not win in court. The US govornment would fold the day he won. I hope that their is no violence and I hop that this does not pass from the public's intrest for it would take a great pressure off the govornment.
Published: April 7, 2007 10:59 AM
Oh no, Jon, I SAID that free-marketeers would support the proverbial apartment owner's right to a small monopoly to make his own rules, punish rule-breakers with force or ejection, and most of all, expect residents to pay a fee for occupying his complex. Yet this private power would be supported because when lefties complain, the righties say it's ok because if you don't like the rules or the fee seems too high, there are other apartment complexes to go to as well. And ultimately if you don't like paying any fees you try to set up your shack on unused land or sleep out in the open. But you can't go seizing the owner's property just because it all seems a little unfair. Or the migration of rentees to nicer apartments with nicer owners would send a proverbial kick in the backside to change his ways too.
However I said elsewhere: why are you presuming that migrating equals exile? Go ye from the Light of Civilisation and go into the Badlands and never return? Many people, rich, middle and even desperately poor, change nations looking for the one with the best opportunities. Many government and business folk worry about 'brain drain' where the ones with highly desirable skills disappear to other nations for better pay and conditions. In ye olde times government DID have a territorial monopoly. But, thanks to globalisation, not anymore. Now government officials have to start biting the bullet and begin to start competing with the other nations for the best and brightest. If governments now have to start competing to get the best to stay with them and the best companies and workers aren't going to be fond of nation with hefty taxes and regulations, then any Socialist-inclined government is going to become poor quickly. And if the best governments that are the smallest and cheapest get the best and become the more prosperous nations then all governments now too have short-term signals as to what type of governments are going to survive into the future. After all, I keep hearing stories of corporations too shutting their operations in Western nations and reopening them in other places where they don't have worry about labour laws, business regulations, enviromental laws, this and that taxes, etc.
If you, Jon and others, take a look at whats been going on in the world for the last 30 or so years, you'd see Western nations having a flight of capital into Asia and India. Hence to say government have a magical monopoly to force wealth production to stay within their borders is rubbish. And any government, as the U.S. seems to be, that tries to pretend otherwise will suffer the inevitable consequences. So where is this mystical monopoly that government have that they makes them eternal? I find extremely hard to believe that in the year 2100 A.D. we'll see any well-to-do Socialist or Welfare-State Governments. More likely they'll all be lean, mean, very very low tax states that have to ruthless compete with one another because the capitalists of the future (and thanks to technology too) will move their capital and investment at the press of the button and ruin any would be Socialist reform. Indeed Robert Kiyosaki warned in 'Rich Dad's Guide to Investing' that the 'trillion-dollar meltdown' in Asia is a preview of the end of large governments to rein in global capital.
Published: April 8, 2007 2:01 AM
I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments on property rights.
Am I also misinterpreting your comments on territorial monopolies? If governments do not have a territorial monopoly of force, there is an easy way to validate this claim. Simply form your own government in your particular city. Notify the the local police and politicians that you will be collecting taxes from them.
Yes, people are usually free to leave, but they cannot be free as long as they remain within the bounds a particular geographic area patrolled by the local government. Again, freedom to choose from various slave masters is hardly freedom.
Yes, there is capital and intellectual flight toward freedom... absolutely. People will tend to flee from the rule of more oppressive thugs to less oppressive thugs. I also hope you are correct in regards to the disappearance of socialist states. Hopefully, this freedom will also extend to eliminate all forms of oppression, including "democracy".
Published: April 8, 2007 11:24 AM
it is not too difficult. that suggests many people do not do their own research but depend on the ramblings of a agitated few.
TAXES ARE MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION
ART I, SEC I: judicial power is vested in the congress. that means they MAKE ALL THE LAWS.
ART I, SEC VIII: congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. HOW CAN THAT BE MISCONSTRUED???
The counter argument will be based on an alternative "interpretation" of the US Constitution. Who interprets the Constitution? The US Supreme Ct. That is their only job, and that completes the triumvarate of power forseen by the Founding Fathers, all you tax cheats like to quote so often. They foresaw the need for taxes and wrote it into the document itself.
I have had the privilege to live all over the world. I am always happiest to return to the US as we enjoy more freedom here than anywhere else I have ever been. I pay my taxes with joy to live here. If you think this guy is a hero, you are just wrong and ignorant. He is a loser who never made any real money of his own, convinced his wife to break the law with her money on their joint property and now does not want to shoulder his burden under the relatively (in the gllbal comparison; in the world, we get the biggest return on our tax dollar)fair tax policy. What you idiots should be protesting is the tax break for the US richest 2%. That is the true outrage, but you think Moron A holding up in his 100 acre compound makes him a hero. Deluded and ignorant.
Published: April 8, 2007 4:27 PM
Patrick Henry:
Let me post a quote from the REAL Patrick Henry.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Published: April 8, 2007 5:38 PM
I don't know Jon. Comments like 'choose betweens different masters doesn't make you less a slave' seems to mean that 'slavery' has no real meaning. Like the word 'racism' it gets thrown around so much that it's not obviously what it's actually supposed to mean. I'd have guessed 'slavery' meant you didn't have the option to leave. But then again, since we all live on reasonably fertile land, it's was going to be a matter of time before enough people get to lay of claim on each plot there is. Hence the landless are either going to pay rent or taxes.
Published: April 8, 2007 10:13 PM
Sam -
By slavery, I mean lacking the freedom to make fundamental choices in your own life without fear of aggression from those who arbitrarily claim to have authority over you. Government citizens are all slaves to varying degrees, depending on the government.
Those who own land will sell their land to the landless. Land obviously gets purchased all of the time. I was landless and purchased land myself. You pay taxes whether or not you own land.
Published: April 10, 2007 6:47 AM
Unfortunately I asked this question on two separate blogs . . . :S
But, heh heh, you used 'citizen' and 'slave' in the same sentence. And, of course, we could argue about the terms of 'landowner' versus 'landholder' too . . . :D
Published: April 10, 2007 7:18 AM
The terms slaves and citizens are interchangeable. There is no problem using them in the same sentence. I would agree that landholder and landowner could mean two different things; a landholder could have unjustly stolen land.
Published: April 10, 2007 6:15 PM
I have not filed an UNCONSTITUTIONAL IRS form 1040 since 1976 and I never will.
IRS has been now six (6) years trying to extort $200,000 from me and they cannot get a dime.
I do not have an attorney nor a CPA and have defied all these atheists and communists SUI JURIS with my computer and Holy Bible and U.S. Constitution.
Ed and Elaine Brown are wonderful Americans and should be loved and adored and applauded every Fourth of July.
The *IRS* is a mere Third Party collection agency for the BMITW..........biggest mob in the world.........the 12-member International Banking Cartel.........in London,England.....who owns the Federal Reserve as a "private closely held banking entity" as per listings in Dun and Bradstreet.
Corporate Income Tax is LEGAL as per legislation of the U.S. Congress...........personal income tax is neither legal nor passed by U.S. Congress legislation.
You fools that pay income taxes are traitors to your own country and deserve to be summarily deported for your nonchalance and stupidity and despicable gutless wonder.
The IRS can have my Lincolns and diesel 4x4s and home and businesses and money...........anytime they can pry it all out of my cold dead fingers.
Published: June 9, 2007 11:23 PM
I think there may be an implicit contract between the government and the people ie: we will pay our taxes and the government will protect us by fighting wars as needed, protecting our borders (HAH), building and maintaining roads and very little else. Clearly the government has abrogated their contract with us via their unwillingness for so many years to protect our borders. Maybe it is time for a BIG Tax Revolt by millions of Americans. Since they can't find 12 million plus who have entered our country illegally, how will they find us when we all refuse to pay them any more money for them to steal and use to play their evil games with each other. I am livid with anger at today's cloture vote.
Published: June 26, 2007 5:10 PM
Zee,
An "implicit contract"?
Contracts require agreement. I think you are mistaking compliance for agreement.
Published: June 27, 2007 1:42 PM
Send the Browns to jail, they are not heros but convicted felons. You all benefit from the tax system everyday, yet you try to convince each other that the system is fake.
What a joke.
Published: July 23, 2007 8:09 PM
"Send the Browns to jail, they are not heros but convicted felons. You all benefit from the tax system everyday, yet you try to convince each other that the system is fake.
What a joke."
I see - now what relation does this bear with the fact that taxation is immoral and that we would prefer privately provided goods? None? Correct. None.
Published: July 23, 2007 8:31 PM
Even if we did benefit from taxes - dubious even in absolute terms, let alone relative to the alternatives that governments ban or crowd out - that wouldn't amount to justification for taxes. The only sort of tax I can ever see justified in that sense is the one kind the Romans kept after they stopped taxing themselves once they got enough tribute from others. It was a temple support tax, kept as a sort of membership fee to maintain a nexus between Romans and their own identity. You could always stop being Roman, just as Benjamin Disraeli's father gave up being a Jew when he didn't like the charges levied on him.
Oh, and Steve can't spell heroes, either.
Published: July 24, 2007 1:07 AM