View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 11:02 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

 The term voluntary implies the absence of force
Anyone,

I do not know why the libeler is inspired to repeat, over and over again, his or her version of perspective. My guess is that the person intends to discredit any voluntary tax, or to ignore any voluntary tax as if no such thing can exist, a form of selective ignorance perhaps.

Something ignored does not go away, as if the child holding his hands over his eyes can make him or her invisible during a game of hid and seek.

My part in this discussion is as serious as Nuclear War. People do pay taxes voluntarily every day. People even pay voluntary taxes that amount to a greater percentage of total earnings voluntarily, not just a low percentage.

Why ignore that fact? What would be the purpose of discrediting that fact, or ignoring that fact?

I can't answer that question since I don't ignore or discredit that fact, it is a fact, and it is a significant fact. The significance amounts to a measure of the power involved.

A. How much power is available from all the people who would stop pay an involuntary tax if they banded together and acted as one collective power?

B. How much power is available from all the people who would stop the people who would stop paying an involuntary tax if they were confronted with a great power focused toward avoiding the payments of involuntary taxes?

And that is my version, spoken by me, and that isn't my version spoken by the libeler who pretends to speak for me, when, in fact, the libeler is speaking for his or her own creation, his or her Straw-Man.   

The group of people in the A list above and the group of people in the B list above constitutes a measurably smaller number of people than the number of people in the C list, it seems to me. 
  1. People who would stop paying involuntary taxes if they reasonably could.
  2. People who would oppose group A every inch of the way away from involuntary taxes
  3. People who choose to ignore things that are not immediately an obvious importance.  
If more of the C list of people move closer to an inevitable realization, to be on one or the other side of the fence, to get their hands dirty so to speak, the choice of ignorance is less of a choice, and more of an actual need to either defend against involuntary taxes or to enforce them directly. 

Again, that is my view, not the view of the Straw-Man pretending to speak for me.

so it cannot be applied to tax
 

The libeler has a way of looking at things, a unique way, and a way of communicating that unique perspective. He or she may see a tax as being only one thing, his or her way of seeing it. What does that have to do with the topic?

If two people or 2 billion people see a tax as a voluntary thing and no one in that group of people taxing each other disagrees with the voluntary tax, then one person disagreeing with the tax could exert his or her power toward avoidance of paying the tax, what happens? What happens in reality? What happens in his or her utopian dream?

Tax is the same scenario of a robber holding a gun to the taxpayer's head, except the gun isn't always physically present, and the robber is an intricate system of police, courts, and governments.
If, among the billions of people who view a tax as voluntary (and do so because they see a need to combine power to defend against criminals who combine power into cabals), if among those people the idea expands into an idea where suspected criminals are judged by some reasonable process, then some reasonable process may become a reality, it make take an actual form, the form may be something similar to Trial by Jury, or the form may change over time into something less like Trial by Jury, as people ignore specific things that may not be immediately obvious.

If one person has a negative view concerning the process of combining power (taxing) into a defensive force for the purpose of avoiding crime (defending against it) as criminals combine power into aggressive, and criminal forces, or powers, then one person has one option, perhaps more than one option, when faced with a criminal power intending to victimize that one person.

Who will help that one person defend against crime if that one person with the negative view is currently being victimized in a real and measurable way? What is the process by which that one person is helped? Are the people helping that one person taxed, or are those people helping that person paying a cost that would otherwise be spent on things that are more immediately interesting to their own selves?