Did you watch the video?
- Where in the bible? Do you mean “Give unto Cesear what is..”?
That does not mean to pay taxes. Consider the situation. Jesus was trapped and being baited, with the goal of jailing him. He does not mean we should all go to jail.
-
I’m old, and you’re undoubtedly smarter today than I am. But that’s no reason at all not to debate.
-
Our taxation is not at all voluntary. If you don’t pay, they fine you. If you don’t pay then they try to confiscate it. If you don’t pay then they put you in jail. What’s voluntary about that. Also although some people centuries ago may have agreed, I did not.
-
What ever are you saying here. I can live fine with out any of your taxes, or mine. I assume you are living with your family and that you will continue to do so.
By reading more of the books, articles and media on Mises you will learn how to argue.
Yeah, she used that verse as one of her arguments, but I find that verse kind of ambiguous and possibly even supporting of the fact that taxation is theft. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is his and unto God what is His, but then you have to think about WHAT does the government truly own and not own? If one considers ownership of things beside self to be attained when one puts labor into it (kind of like homesteading land and resources), then the money you obtain (which is primarily used to exchange for other goods) from income is from your labor and, thus, yours despite what the coin/federal note may say. In my view, the government cannot claim YOUR money and assert that it is the only allowable form of money because that would be like claiming everything else that the money can buy as well is there’s, in which case those other goods/resources would most likely derive from God’s creation (thus, it is God’s) or it could be left to individual ownership. Thus, taking something that is yours by force is theft… I think we can agree to that?
The statist I am arguing with claims that taxation is not theft because the money isn’t really yours. She doesn’t try to “justify” it like other statists who say “end justifies means”, instead creating her own definitions of ownership and property.
Who, if I may, owns “my” money, then?
“Did you watch the video?”
I’ve watched a lot of videos that you have posted on here. Can you be more specific?
Uh…the one that was linked in the three-sentence post you quoted and were responding to.
“Uh…the one that was linked in the three-sentence post you quoted and were responding to.”
Oh that one, yes yes I did. I thought you meant one of the videos that Conza88 put up. I found the quotes in that video fragmented. I’d really like to get around to reading Ron Paul’s new book but I don’t think I will be able to any time soon since grad classes are starting up again. I speculate he will say a lot of what he has been saying, perhaps with new examples and present day situations but like I stated previously I think he is sympathetic to actual anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, whatever you wish to title it. I don’t think he is an actual full supporter of it. He is like a Mises instead of a Rothbard in that respect except like I said, a little more sympathetic.
He did do well in the Ames strawpoll. I’m wondering and I hope actual realistically minded supporters are wondering what it means even though Romney wasn’t there. I don’t need to hear fan boys raving about how it doesn’t matter, Ron Paul beats all. Also what is the strategy for Bachmann? Fight her or make her your VP? Or become her VP?
Andrew, I read about 3/4 of Liberty Defined. It is basically something of a paleolibertarian primer. Not anything special, especially if you have already read For A New Liberty or something like that. But the audience is definitely mainstream America and not libertarian junkies. The most fun part about reading it for me was to see the references and the literature that Paul mentions and comments on. For us, it was mostly the usual suspects: Rothbard, Hoppe, Spooner, etc.
Jose… another thing you could potentially bring up… I must first say that I disagree with this person’s logic that "Taxation was in the bible, therefore it is justified now. However, since she is using that as reason for justification, would you consider asking her the following?
How do you justify your support of taxation and wealth redistibution when faced with commandments such as:
You shall not covet your neighbor’s possessions
You shall not steal
I’d really like to know how she thinks she is obeying these commandments while simultaneously supporting taxation / wealth redistribution.
Or simply