Disobey the State.

[Andius]

@al gore the idiot

Avoiding taxes are hard to do if you work for someone else.

It is an art form where I am from.

[Andius]

@krazy kaju

Advocating breaking the law on a very highly trafficked forum is an unwise action to take.

Perhaps, but sooner or later, it will come out in the open, and as far as I am concerned, most governments, especially non-English speaking ones hardly will give two hoots about this site.

@CrazyCoot

Yep.

And be careful about ending up looking like a fool; that does nobody any good. Focus on education. Besides; you’ll do more by being that annoying guy who talks about this kind of stuff to strangers and family than the kid who writes inappropriate things on dollar bills and sells tax free cigarettes out of the back of his van.

Not a bad approach, but one I consider all too inefficient when your audience does not give a damn about economics like the rest of us here in the Mises Institute. I for one have discovered it far more efficient just using this line:

• The State sucks

• Your money is your own

• It’s illogical to give money to an institution that does not deliver

• Don’t bother to pay

End of Story

[charliehorse]

@Conza88

You are violating the rules set out by the private property owner.

What are you referring to?

[charliehorse]

@CrazyCoot

Besides; you’ll do more by being that annoying guy who talks about this kind of stuff to strangers and family than the kid who writes inappropriate things on dollar bills and sells tax free cigarettes out of the back of his van.

I’m sure that you are right. My goal is to try to find the extent to which the State should be disobeyed. It seems that disobedience is, in and of itself, a good thing. Particular acts of disobedience have be judged on a case-by-case basis.

[EternalSanction]

@Liberté

@Justin Spahr-Summers

I never implied that ethical egoism was mutually exclusive with psychological egoism. In fact, I’ve written in the past about how the latter naturally leads to the former.

Ontological or existential egoism is different than psychological egoism. It does not say that people are inherently ‘selfish’, it says that value-subjectivism entails an existential connection between value and a specific individual who actually perceives value.

Okay, fair enough, although I find that more than a bit absurd.

@Liberté

Morality is logically incompatible with this opinion, unless you want to distort the meaning of ‘morality’ to meaninglessness.

I agree only with objective morality, but I recognize that individuals are fully capable of diverging from whatever such an objective ethical code might be. Every individual assesses good and evil—they differ only in the standard used.

@Liberté

Stirner does not advocate anything. He rejects advocacy.

He advocates the rejection of advocacy. Stirner’s whole philosophy is a good insight (fixed ideas holding power over oneself) taken too far (not everything is a spook—Mises explanation of logic, for instance, is very insightful).

[AuthoritarianCommerc]

No, he does not. The Ego is a statement of what he intends to do. He argues with the reader, but he does not say they ought to do anything - he just considers them delusional if they pursue certain avenues of belief.

[tfr000]

Getting back to the original post,
This is something I do every single year here in the US: when filling out your tax forms, throw away the little IRS-supplied label that has your name, address, SS#, etc. and write it in by hand. This forces some government flunky to read it, rather than being scanned in by a machine.
I suspect if this catches on, it will become no longer optional, however.

[twistedbydsign99]

@Jesse

Here’s a few Ideas that I had. Please add to them:

Cash only business. The only idea that will destroy the state. Don’t evade tax, make taxing impossible.

[SteveFoerster]

@tfr000

Getting back to the original post, This is something I do every single year here in the US: when filling out your tax forms, throw away the little IRS-supplied label that has your name, address, SS#, etc. and write it in by hand. This forces some government flunky to read it, rather than being scanned in by a machine. I suspect if this catches on, it will become no longer optional, however.

I’d be very surprised if they didn’t use optical character recognition to have machines read your handwriting. That’s what the post office does with handwritten addresses on envelopes. -=Steve=-

[charliehorse]

Awesome, these are the sorts of ideas I was looking for. On a related note, what is everybody here doing for the census?

[asusenior]

1. Donate books to your public library and donate household goods to the Goodwill.

2. Make sure you collect the tax slips.

3. Repeat 1 and 2.

[Spideynw]

@Jesse

I am interested in your ideas about how this can be done effectively,

Move to New Hampshire with the freestateproject.org

[SteveFoerster]

@Jesse

On a related note, what is everybody here doing for the census?

Exactly nothing, just like last time. Their envelope went out with the rest of the junk mail, and any people who visit won’t get any more personal information out of me than any other door-to-door solicitor would.

-=Steve=-

[twistedbydsign99]

@Jesse

Awesome, these are the sorts of ideas I was looking for. On a related note, what is everybody here doing for the census?

Fill out the form completely. If I were to pick my battles, staking my claim on the census form seems kind of dumb.

[SteveFoerster]

@twistedbydsign99

@Jesse

Awesome, these are the sorts of ideas I was looking for. On a related note, what is everybody here doing for the census?

Fill out the form completely. If I were to pick my battles, staking my claim on the census form seems kind of dumb.

I understand what you’re saying, but in this case all you have to do is not respond. It’s extremely low risk and unlike compliance requires no effort.

-=Steve=-