Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Forced taxation is violence, It is immoral

Posted 5 years ago on Aug. 8, 2012, 12:38 p.m. EST by mrKitten (3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Using violence to enforce your good intentions is a morally indefensible position. Sugar coat it all you like, but that basic fact will not change:





Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 5 years ago

Yeah, many have bought into that Ayn Rand crap. I'm afraid you've been duped. Libertarianism and Laissez-faire is the road to tyranny. http://occupywallst.org/forum/debunking-libertarian-myths-pt-1/

You're forced to pay taxes, but there's force in any society. In your own words, tell me why it's violent and immoral.


[-] -1 points by mrKitten (3) 5 years ago

I'm afraid if you don't come to your senses you're going to starve in a gutter eating dog feces. Wake up, and start reading actual books, not propaganda on the Internet.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 5 years ago

So you're not able to tell my why you think taxes are immoral and violent? Let me ask you:

1) Since we all receive much more from society than what we give back in terms of labor and taxes, how can you come to this conclusion?

2) Why is it ok for corporations to decide your paycheck, but not ok for government to take a slice of that paycheck?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Do you mean enforcing things like patent law because you think it's "good" or "property rights" because you think stealing is morally "wrong", it is an interesting position but I believe it would lead to extreme disorder.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3144) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Taxes and death are the two rules of life.

Taxes should not be too painful, or unusual. They are in all societies. Even in the tv game of Survivor, those who did not contribute would be "banished" from the tribe.

Now you may argue "no taxes without representation: and that you are not being represented.

That is why you have recourse of law and elections.

I don't know if you are forced to pay taxes. You could refuse and pay your time, such as Richard Hatch and Wesley Snipes?

Doing this time may be a bit violent, so I will do my best to pay taxes, for the good of the collective. Some taxes I may not like. Recently my state let the people have a voice and allow "privatization of liquor" which had been available in state run stores. Low and behold, prices went up $10. a bottle after it became privatized.

It does inflict a bit of temporary pain, maybe part of the increase was partially due to a new state tax.

But if i don't want to pay taxes, I am free to go to Mexico, and fend for myself, where the nation has essentially failed to maintain peace, stability and safety.

Now that is violence, where people are afraid to travel and visit other places, for fear for personal safety. So taxes are a necessity to life.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

what should be done about property rights?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Taxation is nearly always forced; otherwise most people won't pay taxes. I hardly call that violence, since most taxing agencies, nowadays, rarely threaten physical well-being, they simply confiscate from holdings of the non-complying individuals. You may disagree with that action, but it's not violent.

I don't believe most taxing agencies have good intentions. Their purpose is to collect money. To them the taxpayer is just another commodity. Hmm, that sounds familiar, because that's the way most workers are treated by the ruling class. So, your argument should be directed against the ruling class and the general concept of capitalism, though even in a non-capitalist society, taxes would--I'm afraid--be as sure as death.

Your whole premise is a non sequitur.

[-] 2 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

If a person disagrees with the wars overseas, and the domestic spying conducted by the NSA, and decides that they will stop paying taxes in civil disobedient protest what happens:

The IRS will file a case against the individual, many times ending in criminal indictment. Then the individual is driving down the road, or sitting peacefully in his or her home, then Johnny Law shows up. The individual is forced from their vehicle, or served with a "knock and announce" warrant - (falluja style military building breach). Fully automatic weapons are pointed at the heads of that person's family and children, dogs are shot, murdered, and the individual is lucky to have survived the contact (many don't).

Then the individual is thrown in a county lockup, then later thrown in a violent super-hell "department of corrections institution". The person is likely to be raped, or beaten in prison.

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

So yes, it is violence...

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

That's quite a leap in logic.

IRS cases are almost always handled as civil matters, unless tax evasion can be proven. If a person files returns, but does not pay in non-violent protest, the issue is almost always handled non-violently through confiscation of belongings.

Your scenario is very dramatic, but highly fictional.

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

And if it is prosecuted in a civil court, and the person stays in their house, they will be forcibly removed, assets forcibly taken, by men with guns... It's still force, and it's still violence.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

You misunderstand the law. No prosecution takes place in civil court. The government may sue a person for non-payment of taxes, though such a move is not required. The IRS may confiscate one's property without going through court proceedings for non-payment of taxes. That rarely requires armed men, unless the errant taxpayer refuses to cooperate.

Any society requires taxation of some sort, regardless of what it is called or how it is imposed, to build, support, and maintain the administration of the collective body.

I suppose that if one wants to live as a hermit, outside the pales of society that person can avoid taxation, but organized societies require infrastructure, law enforcement, and defense mechanisms, not to mention the various social distribution programs, and the only way to pay for all of those is to collect from the mass of people.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

Well it worked pretty well in the USA before the institution of the income tax. Seems to be that also correlates with the time the US started this boom/bust business cycle insanity.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

There were many booms and busts before 1913.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

Review the following chart from the 1940s. Please note that under a gold exchange standard (not a true gold standard - fractional reserve banking) we had even in this imperfect system an extremely stable economy! downturns never exceeded a gentle correction, even during times when monetization occured (civil war). Suddenly, in 1913 the Federal Reserve system was instituted, and the real drama began.


[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

The parts of the graph that change dramatically after 1913 are federal debt and national income. It's not clear if these figures are adjusted for inflation though which limits ones ability to making any reasonable conclusions.

I don't see an extremely stable economy at any time since 1775.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

From crisis to crisis, which is nothing but a result of supply and demand, is one of the basic tenets of capitalism, which has little to do with income tax.

I don't know where you learned history, but the first national rebellion in the United States, the Whisky Rebellion, was fought against the imposition of taxes, and that occurred in 1794. Seven years earlier Massachusetts' armed forces suppressed a local tax rebellion. So "it" didn't just work hunky dory until the time of the income tax.

Many people don't like to pay taxes, maybe because they don't understand the benefits from the collective construction, support, and maintenance of infrastructure and community administration.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

I pay mine, but they're still immoral, and they're the basis of violence against a populace by a government. It's not about "benefits" - I could argue till the sun burns out about these "benefits".

I don't want my labor being used to:

Murder children in drone strikes

Initiate wars of aggression against boogeymen

Fund other countries militaries to do the same

Support banking bailouts and criminal cartels

Pad the pockets of crony capitalists

finance the tools of my own oppression


I didn't say it was great, I said it was pretty good i.e. it's gotten worse.

It's a matter of right and wrong. Is it right to rob someone at gunpoint, with implicit threat of violence? If you agree that it is good to under the threat of murder or suffering, "for the common good", then you've accepted the use of violence, and are no different than the bankers you protest against, and the police enforcers that crack open our skulls, "for the greater good" of course...

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

I'm not quite sure what you're point is, except that you don't like to pay taxes for purposes with which you disagree. If that's the case, even in a real democracy, not an oligarchy as in the United States, you may still be required to pay taxes for disagreeable purposes. A truly democratic society operates on the principle that the will of the majority sets the course of law.

Anyone who disagrees with that course of law is free to leave or to gather enough agreeable people to form a new majority consensus.

If you mean that citizens of a society, should have the individual right to accept or reject whatever laws the real democratic majority decides, you're advocating nothing more than a free for all, where any individual is free to decide what is ultimately right or wrong.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

A free for all is anarchism, which still has implicit grassroots rules of conduct.

We have a democratic republic, rather, we had a democratic republic.

That structure is still a good structure. The Swiss have maintained their republic fairly well over time, but the differences between them and us are important. They have bottom up systems - we, since federalism and Lincoln, have been top down. The Swiss people are much more likely to personally know their representatives. In the United States, knowing someone on a school board is an extreme rarity... In Switzerland, the model is designed to cause problems to fail small and fail fast - bottom up. We have a top down system, which fails slowly and apocalypticly.

Yes, individual human beings must be the primary party in any system, and the system should be re-ordered, bottom up.

"What is called economic power, while it can be an instrument of coercion, is, in the hands of private individuals, never exclusive or complete power, never power over the whole life of a person. But centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery." Hayek

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Marx considered the Austrian school of economics nothing more than a whore on the payroll of capitalist pimps. I certainly agree with him on that point.

"Cuba does not agree that economics can be separated from politics, and understands that they always go together." Che Guevara

"For nowadays the military and the political cannot be separated from economic... We now live ... in a political economy that is closely linked with military institutions and decisions. This is obvious in the repeated "oil crisis" in the Middle East..." C. Wright Mills

"The executive of the modern state [democratic republic] is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoise." Karl Marx

Our structure has rotted to the core. It's bought and paid for, I'm all for bottom-up government; I'm an anarcho-communist or libertarian communist, if the latter make you more comfortable. The economy has generally been used by the ruling class to control and suppress workers. The proof is all around us.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

It's about power, once somebody get's control, it's just a matter of time.

Not to be fatalistic, but I think this is just part of every generation's battle of good versus evil. I think it's a natural cycle, like the seasons. We're heading for a hard winter, I recommend squirreling away some more peanuts.

Governments inevitably become captured by power, even the founding fathers recognized that, and tried to put every obstacle in the way to slow it down. We're almost out of road, and there's a 1000' cliff ahead.

I don't care for Che, he was a mass murderer and a power hungry totalitarian. All of his discussions are tainted with his lust for power. Marx was dead long before the real Austrian school really emerged so I'm not sure how he could have had an opinion. He died in 1883, and Mises was only starting to talk about things in the 1920s. (40 or so years)

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

I'm not sure how Carl Menger and Eugen Böhm von Bawerk would take their omission from the Austrian school. Both critized Marx and Engels repeatedly and were rebuffed by Marx then Engels after the death of his friend and collaborator.

As for Che's reputation, I don't care to get into that, but suggest you read The Motorcycle Diaries by the infamous mass murderer and totalitarian. On that trip around much of South America, he and his friend, Alberto Granado, volunteered at a leper colony and spent some time there caring for the sick and dying. Compare those actions to those, who paint Che in a totally unfavorable light. He was a revolutionary. He killed many people, but then again so did Ulysses Grant, William T Sherman, George Patton, and Dwight Eisenhower.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

I'm a soldier (former), and know and studied Che's military writings and deeds. He committed massacres. He's a war criminal, so was Sherman, Grant, and whoever gave the go-ahead for the fire bombings of Dresden.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

I certainly won't disagree that if we include all the above in the list, Che deserves to be right on the top of the list. Of course, Che was murdered in cold blood by the CIA under the cover of the Bolivian Army, which would qualify as a war crime. So, in the end I guess karma proved itself; Che got what he dished out. Too bad most of the war criminals have not,.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

The free for all, is modern libe(R)tarianism.

Based on lies

It's more forceful coercion, by other means.

So pretty and free in outward appearance, and so ugly and tyrannical at it's core.

It has infected and infested countries all over the World.

Take a look around to see it's affects.



[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 5 years ago

What planet do you live on - they don't do what you claim here in the US of A.

Have you ever delt with the IRS - if not then stop making stupid claims about what you think" they would do if you don't pay the taxes you owe.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

A willful failure to file an income tax return is a crime punishable a fine of not more than $25,000 and imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. I.R.C. section 7203. This criminal penalty is in addition to the civil penalty under section 6651.

A willful attempt to evade the income tax is a crime punishable a fine of not more than $100,000 and imprisonment of not more than five years, or both. I.R.C. section 7201. This criminal penalty is in addition to the civil penalty for fraud under section 6653(b).

Fines through use of force = violence

Imprisonment = violence

How do they put you in the cage, they send men with guns... It's violence no matter how you try to weasel out of it. The sooner you can come to terms with it, then you can be open with who you really are, a totalitarian tyrant, or a believer in non-violence and individual freedom... Your choice.

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 5 years ago

Well, I owed the IRS over $100,000 and didn't file a return for 5 years - I didn't go to prison and never had guns pointed at me.

So what do you say about that?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Do you have a good reason for not paying those taxes (?) for not supporting the society in which you live?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 5 years ago

That is irrevelent and personal - the point I was making was based upon what Kaiserw was indicating is not true in any sense no matter how you cut it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Speak to the issues not the individuals. Could you not afford your taxes? I don't care if it was personal or not - why did you opt out on supporting society for 5 years? If it was a matter of not being able to afford them at the time I would expect that you could set-up a payment/repayment program.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 5 years ago

I have spoke to the issue - the issue was if you don't pay your taxes the government will come to your house with guns blazing. That didn't happen.

And yes I did set up a "payment schedule"

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Good deal on the payment program. And fine - refute that the home invasion is happening unless the other party can provide proof. As we all know government is not doing a very good job of working for the people at this very moment in time. I would have a tendency to call the IRS home invasion as complete BS as well.

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

welcome to the future! where a swat team will come after you for a late student loan, or a book from the library... Really, no shit:



You think your 100,000 tax bill is a little more valuable than a late copy of "Thomas the Train"... Yea, they're coming...


[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 5 years ago

So tell me - which of these three articles had anything to do with the IRS?


[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

Not paying what you owe is violence and immoral.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

Oh yes it is. If you don't pay up what you owe, the people you owe money to will be pissed, and will get violent if you still don't pay. YOU cause violence to happen when you don't pay. And its immoral to rip somebody off.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

free will exists

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

Free will yes, but that does not mean free lunch.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago


food grows through the sun light

one day the sun will shine no more

but the earth will be gone already absorbed into the red expanding sun


[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 5 years ago

I think perpetual interest rate charges that never allow a debtor to get out of debt may be more immoral, no? www.debtneutrality.blogspot.com

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

But It's OK for corporations to do it and use that money to buy government?

That's what makes libe(R)tarians of all stripes so confusing.

[-] 1 points by mrKitten (3) 5 years ago

No! Of course it's not ok for corporations to do it! It's not ok for anyone to do it.

As long as it's admitted that the law may be diverted from it's true mission, that it may violate property instead of securing it, everybody will be wanting to manufacture law, either to defend himself against plunder, or to organize it for his own profit. The political question will always be prejudicial, predominant and absorbing; in a word, there will be fighting around the door of the Legislative Palace. The struggle will be no less furious within it. To be convinced of this, it is hardly necessary to look at what passes in the Chambers in France and in England; it is enough to know how the queston stands...

It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this- the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. - Frederic Bastiat "The Law"

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

The actual "plunder" today, is in the profits.

If any corporation, or individual is making enough to buy my, or anyone else's government, they are making WAY too much money.

They are, in effect practicing extraction.

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

What you speak of is the abrogation of the rule of law such as Glen Greenwald has discussed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ikDHnZIQ2Q&feature=player_embedded

This buying of government is commonly referred to as "Rent Seeking" http://econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html

"It has been known for centuries that people lobby the government for privileges. Tullock’s insight was that expenditures on lobbying for privileges are costly and that these expenditures, therefore, dissipate some of the gains to the beneficiaries and cause inefficiency."

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I like Greenwald.

What I did, was boil it down to an easily understood sentence.

If you are making so much money you can buy my government, you are making WAY too much money.

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

The government must be unbuyable. That is the only morally defensible position. Your only other option is the use of force and violence upon others which goes back to these principles.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Can you boil that down to a simple understandable sentence, as I did?

What is morally defensible about enough money to buy a government, whether you actually buy it or not?.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

Open your mind a minute, I'm trying to answer you. A friend of mine is a cancer researcher, and something he said seems very apropos to our current discussion and this situation. He stated that people that get cancer don't just have one problem that leads to the cancer, there's always a dozen or more things broken to allow the cancer to grow.

The wealth disparity we see currently, which is largely to blame with the government rent seeking is largely to do with how the currency / monetary system is currently architected. When the government issues money, it gets the biggest bang for the buck at the point it is released to the economy- the banks. This does a bang up job of explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvL_Dm2d99A

Other large problems are the people in charge of the companies, they have no downside to taking risk, the same goes for politicians. If you can "win" today, and the bill comes due next week after you're gone, you don't care. This problem is the same in business and government. Government officials promise huge things to people today, pandering to people, and the consequences are far in the future. That is the "kicking the can" analogy.

The Rule of law, as Greenwald speaks so eloquently about is the other issue.

Other issues I see, are complex systems issues. As a system scales larger, it becomes more unstable, like adding to a pile of sand, at some point it reaches a terminal state, and it cannot continue to grow in height - scale, then it suffers a cascade failure, to reach a new more distributed equilibrium - more local systems. In nature this is a natural force of ebb and flow. In human systems we seek to optimize. Nassim Taleb, has quoted that if a Human were designed by an economist, he wouldn't have 2 kidneys or two lungs; 12 people would use a central kidney on a time share basis to maximize efficiency. Unfortunately, nature doesn't like optimized systems, they go extinct. There's a great paper on this subject, just brilliant: www.fooledbyrandomness.com/ForeignAffairs.pdf

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

That's not in any way, shape, or form, a simple sentence.

In more ways than one, it skirts the issue I brought up.


I think the truth lies here.

Austrian economics and it's many offshoots, are the cause of the economic issues we suffer..

Perhaps Mr. Greenwalds expose of the Kochs would serve you better.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

Can you explain all the aspects of particle physics in a simple sentence. Can you thoroughly explain magnetism, or fire in a simple sentence to someone who has never seen a magnet, or has any understanding of chemical combustion? No.

Net the cause is fraud, perverse incentives and human nature, but to make a cop out, and simply state "fire is MAGIC!" is not intellectually honest or helpful.

Your link makes strawman arguments against a group of people or political movement. I'm doing the opposite. What I've done is present ideas that stand on their own, as truth, period. You can ascribe them to a political ideology if you like, but the fact of the matter is they use verifiable logic to explain the cause for the system state, and offer a road out.

I don't care about the Kochs, they're very likely crony capitalist criminals themselves just as Warren Buffet is, and 99% of wall st, and 100% of K street. I care about fixing this for the sake of humanity, and to stop the bloodshed, suffering and violence, for the sake of my children.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

You're just over complicating, that which is simple.

Avoiding the truth I spoke in a simple sentence.

Economics is not "magic" either.

If you are making enough money, to buy my government, you are making way too much money.

Ps. the link is not "strawmen".

It's reality.

Your ignorance of what the Kochs have done?


The Kochs are modern libe(R)tarianism,.

Pure and simple.

Everything else, is bullshit.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

There's an unending sea of boogeymen that have raped the country. I don't doubt the Koch's are party to that group of people, so is Buffet, and an endless list of them, including pretty much everybody who's served in government office for the last 100 years or more. You're distracting from the point. What you see as a cause is still a 2nd order symptom.

I'm not even advocating libertarianism, I'm just bringing up facts and logical principles to stand on their own account. If you disagree with them, argue them individually, don't lump them in with some strawman ideology to slay as a vicious giant which is in all actually, is a windmill.

Your statement: "If you are making enough money, to buy my government, you are making way too much money." rests on some shaky foundations:

1) the perennial problem that government has always been for sale over history. If someone has something to sell, it will be bought. Money isn't always the currency government favors or power is traded in, it's often traded for other favors. This happened in the USSR where everyone was dirt poor except for the ones in power. Look at any filthy poor country, corruption is usually even more rampant than we have here!

2) You imply that if someone is making too much money, that something should be done about it i.e. take it from them, or prevent them from getting money - this sets up a disproportionate power structure which CAUSES THE VERY PROBLEM YOU'RE SEEKING TO PREVENT

I just explained in my earlier post, wealth disparity is far, far less in a non-corrupted monetary system - power is distributed democratically - which reduces the most extreme capability of people buying government

Pull yourself and your mind above the sewer depths of where the rats live, and start thinking philosophically instead of politically.


[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

Warren Buffet is just as bad as the Koch's based on principle not some arbitrary "eat the rich" bullshit. He's a crony capitalist, or less politely, a fascist: http://www.aleksandreia.com/2012/04/23/how-insider-trading-laws-favor-government-and-how-warren-buffett-gets-rich-at-your-expense/

His system of "fair" taxation is about as fair as a reverse robin hood.

I'm not advocating communism, certainly. I'm advocating for small bottom-up systems to replace the old ones when they fall away. tick, tick tick...

Just do me this favor, take your attitude, and your bias, and set it aside, and genuinely start looking for who predicted what we went through and have been going through, some 1950s FED minutes are quite enlightening (just a suggestion) and what we're about to go through, and start looking at what countries prosper... Why? Try starting with Niall Ferguson:



[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

So, where's your sentence?

You're way off the mark on #2.

It's a reality.

I also reject your attempts at insult.

Would you prefer that I return them in kind?

The biggest, most viscous rats I know of are the founders of modern libe(R)tarianism. You know who they are.

That's a sewer I left a long, long time ago.

It's those rats that have infected our system.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

It wasn't directed at you. I'm calling the politicians and political class rats.

As a case study, despite all the problems we have in the US. Rank the prosperity of the lowest in society over time based on economic system. The most economically liberal - respective of personal property have flourished. North America vs Central America and Mexico is used as an example in his book, and despite the southern hemisphere being richer in resources, silver and gold, the US became the most powerful force in the world for over a century, leaving our neighbors far behind in prosperity. Niall Fergusson did a bang up job on this very subject in his book "Civilization" He did a TED talk on it too. He makes the analogy that the West discovered several "killer apps" property rights, etc. Definitely a great book, worth reading, you'll like it, really, you will. He's a very entertaining writer.

I'm not boiling it down to a sentence, sorry. Philosophy is larger than an aphorism, but Nassim Taleb wrote a good book of them, read it and pick one: "The bed of Procrustes", kind of fits your demand as well:

In Greek mythology Procrustes (Προκρούστης) or "the stretcher [who hammers out the metal]", also known as Prokoptas or Damastes (Δαμαστής) "subduer", was a rogue smith and bandit from Attica who physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed. In general, when something is Procrustean, different lengths or sizes or properties are fitted to an arbitrary standard.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Gotta stand and face it. Your life is so complicated.

Here's another one for you.

A living wage is one that provides for upward mobility.

For your sake, I hope the libe(R)tarians don't start fracking under your land.

It's not like they will compensate you for any damages........LOL

PS.....How'd that go again? Oh yeah! Don't believe everything you read.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 5 years ago

Sounds to me you are cheap and easy - LOL

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Actually, I'm not that good at selling out for a few dollars more.

It's a shame you look at that angle first in life.

I put that statement together a while ago, and I still stand by it.

It's apolitical, non-biased and nonpartisan, and it still pisses people off..................

I find it adds credence to it's veracity.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 5 years ago

If I was that serious about being demeaning I would have added a lot more to it.

I would think you know me well enough through the discussions we have had on this board that I don't make it a point criticize people because of what they say like a lot of other folks do on this board.

So if you took my comment wrong I appologize.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Thanks. I appreciate that.

I was just having fun with it.

However, the statement is still true.

If you are making enough money to buy my government, you are making way too much money.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 5 years ago

I agree, there's alot of people that have been so impacted by the state of the world that they toss away capitalism completely. All that is left then is a top-down centrally planned option, which is hyper-violent in it's very nature. I think that is a mistake. We don't have capitalism now, we have fascism, and we have had fascism in varying degrees since the civil war.


[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

Then go live in the woods, free of taxes and their benefits.

[-] 1 points by mrKitten (3) 5 years ago

You didn't watch the video did you? This entire movement is supposed to be about principle, and making the world a better place, for our kids, our grandchildren. This can only happen with a discussion built upon true principle. To stupidly reply "go live in the woods, free of taxes and their benefits" is to ascribe to the principles of tyranny and violence, A boot stomping on the face of humanity for all time. The destruction of man and humanity, the slaughter of innocents, and children.

By not engaging in a real genuine discussion, you become complicit in the slaughter, and the violence, you lace up the boots, and become an enforcer, smashing in the faces of the powerless. To stand in support puts you on the same level as Loyd Blankfien and the rest of the banker scum. Bravo...

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

it's a choice homeboy. You either live in the wilderness with all the freedom you can muster, or you live among society and pay your share to support all the benefits of society. Without taxes there are no roads, no police, no fire department, essentially no civilization. The core foundation that society is built upon relies on services we all need and use, and that gets paid for with taxes. Taxes = Civilization. Take it or leave it. If you want to haggle over what you is your fair share to pay, well this thread doesn't address that.

[-] 1 points by mrKitten (3) 5 years ago

It's not a choice, it's a devil's choice! So a little bit of violence is ok? It's ok to rape just a few people? It's ok to just murder people with brown skin? It's all the same logic. It's all wrong, and immoral.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

you're rambling.