Not the consent whining again. No social institution is consensual, especially private property.
How does living in a jurisdiction not imply consent? A government that annexes your property under its conrol and prevents your mobilization to avoid the alternative of agression has violated your naturals rights. Buying into a state guarenteed property means you are consenting to the consequences of noncompliance.
“In the market, you pay for those services which you find beneficial and withhold payment from those you don’t, but you do not ever force someone to pay for something they don’t like. Being forced to be “a stockholder” is not the same as voluntarily being a consumer.”
In my “property based minarchy”, the stockholders are invested in only property protection by their consented presence, no force involved. If they don’t want to pay for property protection because of disagreement, they essentially dissolve the contract of state property protection.
How does a woman wearing a short skirt imply consent for a man to have sex with her?
I honeslty tried to understand the parallel of the analogy and I fail. Perhaps this is the crux of my misunderstanding… please break down the analogy for me.
Just because a woman “dresses provocatively” doesn’t mean she consents to any man just taking her and having his way with her, right? Similarly, just because I live somewhere doesn’t mean I consent to be ruled. It’s a flagrant non sequitur to suggest otherwise.
And can anyone address how anarcho-capitalists address electromagnetic spectrum management? (See my earlier reply)
BTW 11.66 was involved by solving (P*.03)/(E*.35)=1 in order to do a comparison of taxes gleaned through earnings versus taxes that would be gained through asset value creation. The average S&P P/E is about 20, meaning corporations are paying about 50% of the value that government protections have garnered them. (That’s not to say some wouldn’t be valued greater without the state but they chose to incorporate here)
So she expects not to be transgressed when she walks into a foreign “I give consent to sex zone”?
There’s no such thing.
You know, there is a great search feature on the website. You should probably learn how to use it.
Look you’re going to have to argue your points rather than state denial. Why would anyone waive their right to consent to sex? Because in that zone are likely benefits that outway the costs.
Indeed there is. Please search for electromagnetic and let me know what you come up with. Besides, I want to discuss it within the context of my assets creation premise.
Why? Your blatant assertion and begged question needs only be met with gainsaying. That is how it works.
They wouldn’t. Now you get to show that the government actually owns the land in order to force people to pay. Good luck with that–you’ll need it.
Then kindly use it. Please get out of the mindset that everything has to be spoon-fed to you. Reality doesn’t work that way. You have to put forth effort, as you don’t get a gold star here just for existing.
Do you now speak for ALL people? In the history of man, a person has never exchanged basically sex on demand for limited services? Probably just as important as sex is children. People haven’t ever consented to someone else forcing how their child is raised? The benefits outweigh the costs or they move to another school district that does.
I do not have to show government own all property, but rather creates the ability to enforce property on the basis of conceding other liberties.
I’m not asking for spoon feeding, I’m saying it doesn’t exist on this site as you say (or at least its worded as I cannot find it, in which case you should further your cause and show me)
sigh
The gun in the room has been shown. Deal with it or not. Your choice. And yes, you do have to show that the government owns the property in order to demand payment. Further, you have to show that it is only with government that property rights can be enforced. Tall task. Get to it.
Also, you are demanding to be spoon-fed. It does exist on this site. http://mises.org/daily/1662
Know how long it took me to find that? 3 seconds. You clearly didn’t search at all. Do not lie.
I will try to keep this reply limited to the subject of your original post (the tax plan).
It looks like a plan to feed the monster. There is no plan for the government to become “minimal”. It is a statist’s dream come true.
This seems to be the justification for your asset taxation scheme. So, there can be no privately owed property without the state? I think you need to study this more.
I have read enough about libertarian ideas to know the above quote is not grounded in reality. Forgive me for asking, but have you studied the libertarian framework at all? From what you are stating, it seems you are completely in the dark about libertarian concepts.
This is a contradiction in terms. As for your radio station example, all the issues / problems that are “resolved” by government could easily be addressed by the free market. Suggestion: Study first, then use the forum to ask questions, and stay focused. You will find the replies will become more useful.
What did you search for? It does not address my rogue broadcaster problem.
This is the original tax. The king or emperor (or highway bandit) rides in and assesses a tax based on how rich you are. More is taken from the rich because they have more to take. In the modern era, governments have tried to conceal the true nature of taxation (unjustifiable expropriation) by taxing flows (income) instead of stocks (wealth). The net effect is, of course, exactly the same. The only thing that really changes is the strategies which people employ to escape taxation.
The “assessment” of US asset values is entirely dependent on market demand (where the market is the world, not just within the US). The government’s level of expropriation has the effect of reducing asset values so that an assessment that says the government would only need to steal 3% of everything we own to pay the obligations for which they have put us on the hook could turn out to require 6% or 20% or whatever as the expropriation process itself begins collapsing market demand for US assets. This is, in fact, one of the factors contributing to the economic collapse. One can only interpret the health reform bill as an attempt by parties interested in completely destroying the US economy to seal the deal.
Clayton -
Conclusion: AJR does not want to learn.
Spectrum. You should give it a try.