Wow. I cannot believe I have just realized what a crock the whole “no taxation without representation is”. Government schools present the arguments suggesting that because you can vote for someone, you therefore have representation. What a joke! What gargabe!!!
The only way to truly have representation is to not limit the number of representatives and to then also allow people to either elect someone to represent themself or to be able to represent themself on their own.
Again, what a crock!
My motto: No taxation. No representation.
Yea they should always add in the subtext, oh btw “representation” means someone else represents you and you just trust them blindly, k thnx have a nice day.
In pre-revolutionary France it was no taxation without consent, meaning that the representatives who voted for the taxes did not actually get to decide how to spend it.
This is one point (earmarks) where Ron Paul is totally wrong in my opinion. The less that congress gets to control spending, the less spending it will vote for.
I still do not understand the difference. Who gets to decide how to spend it then?
I think you make a very valid point here.
The King.
Taxation with representation ain’t so hot either.
Here’s an idea: Representation without taxation! How does it work? Everyone represents themselves! I bet paternalists would squirm…
I think that is false.
I agree, which is why I also think that all legislation should require 100% approval by the representatives to pass. Good luck getting anything passed with 130 million representatives.
I believe that ‘representation’ is a crock to begin with. In an agreeable arrangement like a marriage, even one spouse would have a difficult time ‘representing’ the other all the time [;)]. Besides this isn’t the 18th century any longer. Pretty much everyone is literate, has the ability to meet their needs or at least voice them. I know I wouldn’t miss any ‘representation’ if government disappeared.
Regarding taxes -
I’m Ataxist
Next time I’m asked what “Party” I support, I will reply “Ataxist”.
Ataxist is not a philosophy, its a mandate. Its not vague, it has a specific agenda and purpose - to eliminate participation in tax systems.
Of course the initial reaction will be negative, all changes are resisted by TTWIAHB (that’s the way its always has been). But as the following reasons become HEARD, I believe that such a movement may have a chance of catching on.
Reason #1 - Taxes are involuntary. This is theft backed by coercion.
Reason #2 - Taxing always ends up a corrupt system because it breaks the linkage of cause and effect, effectively eliminating any self regulating mechanism for discipling costs in relation to results.
Reason #3 - Direct means of payment are possible. Large organizations do exist that support themselves and provide a product/service, all on a choice to participate basis. (Telecommunications, consumer products, security services etc…)
If such a thing catches on, I believe that it may become possible that more people will start to see and think of the government as the entity that it really is - a service organization. Also this (non-)“party” can be accepted by, and possibly incorporated into other existing parties that want to achieve a freer life (Libertarian especially). Plus this is all legal. As an Ataxist I am NOT advocating non payment of taxes, I am declaring that I prefer an alternate system for payment. To that end I will do whatever I can to 1) pay as direct as possible for all products and services, and 2) not pay for those things that I do not want to receive or support.
Simple, direct and effective.
I wathced an interview where Ron Paul said he didn’t like earmarks, but he pushed some through, saying that since his constitutens pay so much taxes, he’s just filling a return to get some of that money back. 
Reason number 4—taxation always results in institutionalized power over the populace. Power tends to attract power-hungry people who will lie and kill for it. Democratic processes are not effective in curbing the effects of power; in a democracy, the “leaders” need only pander and bribe a fraction of the population to grasp power. This fraction of the population will then disseminate propaganda to society at large to persuade the masses that the “leaders” are acting in “the public interest”.
Reason 5—money that is taxed can be used for things that people would never voluntarily support—foreign invasions, mass surveillance, social reforms foisted upon the “backwards” public by the “enlightened” elites.
Reason 6—money that is taxed in rarely conserved. Organizations that earn money attempt to render their operations more cost-effective, whereas organizations that tax money have no incentive to do so.
Reason 7—as central planning causes the economy to run less and less efficiently, a larger and larger portion of the economy is inevitably needed to sustain the state, impoverishing the masses. For example, when inflation occurs, taxes are increased, because the same amount of money is no longer sufficient to fund the government.
Reason 8—when government intake because inexorably large, and government output also inexorably large, citizens seek to benefit from government output while avoiding paying into the government systems; the attitude becomes, “tax somebody else”.
More reasons are welcome.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
I’ve always believed that this should mean that everyone should get as many votes as he pays dollars in tax.
That would sure give taxpayers a bigger say in how their money is spent.
The downside is that the rich might exploit it to entrench their position.
I sometimes suggest that you just make all taxation voluntary, which is really what the much-maligned poll tax was.
Social pressure would probably keep people coughing up for a small army and coast guard. Cops and teachers would have to get entrepeneurial pretty darn quick though.
Just think how many bureaucracies would disappear overnight if they had to solicit bids for their services like everybody else. Actually, try not to think about it. [:(]
So?