NationStates

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:28 am**

BK117B2 wrote:
Sociobiology wrote:your parent were the first party. the country was the second, and the contract is citizenship.

Which is relevant when you're a child. Most people eventually grow up

and fail to cancel their contract of citizenship.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:32 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Sociobiology wrote:
why? You CAN make contracts that effect children.

You increasingly show how little you know about contracts

but you can't make a contract that adversely affects the rights of third parties

sure you can, every application of rights involves limiting the rights or perceived rights of others.

rights by their very nature are always in conflict.

For example, I can't make a contract with B that takes away some of C's rights (and C is not a party).

yeah you can, it happens all the time, serious go learn something about real contracts before making such an absurd argument.

parents can sign their children up for military schools, sign off on medical procedures, transport them across national borders and renounce your citizenship , ect.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:53 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
So then get all your apathetic friends to refuse to pay taxes since you hate the system so much and think voting is trivial and a waste of time. I'm sorry the education system has failed you so. Why don;t you go move to the Western Sahara where there is no formal government and no taxes to pay?

you are conflating a distrust/disengagement with the voting system with political apathy

there can be an overlap but there doesn't have to be

also, what does the Sahara Desert and the failure of the education system have to do with anything?

Being disengaged from the political process is apathy. I'm sorry the education system has failed you so that you see voting and politics as trivial and a waste of time. the Western Sahara which is a region south of Morocco with no formal government. You wouldn't have to pay taxes. If you didn't have taxes where would the government get money from? Why don't you get all your apathetic friends and refuse to pay taxes since you see it as theft. Sue the government when the the IRS garnishes your wages among other things.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:06 am**

Sociobiology wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
so tell me, which political party supports the abolition of taxes?

the tea party?

The anarchist party. *nods*

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:36 am**

Sociobiology wrote:
BK117B2 wrote:Which is relevant when you're a child. Most people eventually grow up

and fail to cancel their contract of citizenship.

Not actually a contract, since contract requires agreement. Citizenship does not require agreement, it is just a status bestowed

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:46 pm**

Sociobiology wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
so tell me, which political party supports the abolition of taxes?

the tea party?

even if that were their united political platform, do they have any realistic prospects of winning elections in the States?

If not, then I believe the time and effort it would take to get to the voting poll may be better off spent on pursuing personal hobbies instead because I'm likely to get a greater return on the time value

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:48 pm**

San Lumen wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
you are conflating a distrust/disengagement with the voting system with political apathy

there can be an overlap but there doesn't have to be

also, what does the Sahara Desert and the failure of the education system have to do with anything?

Being disengaged from the political process is apathy. I'm sorry the education system has failed you so that you see voting and politics as trivial and a waste of time. the Western Sahara which is a region south of Morocco with no formal government. You wouldn't have to pay taxes. If you didn't have taxes where would the government get money from? Why don't you get all your apathetic friends and refuse to pay taxes since you see it as theft. Sue the government when the the IRS garnishes your wages among other things.

I don't trust the judges to reach the right decision in such a law-suit; also, I'd rather live a safe and comfortable life even if that means getting oppressed every now and then...

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:49 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Sociobiology wrote: the tea party?

The anarchist party. *nods*

Oxymoron.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:55 pm**

Sociobiology wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
but you can't make a contract that adversely affects the rights of third parties

sure you can, every application of rights involves limiting the rights or perceived rights of others.

rights by their very nature are always in conflict.

For example, I can't make a contract with B that takes away some of C's rights (and C is not a party).

yeah you can, it happens all the time, serious go learn something about real contracts before making such an absurd argument.

parents can sign their children up for military schools, sign off on medical procedures, transport them across national borders and renounce your citizenship , ect.

First of all, the transporting people across national borders thing and the renouncing of citizenship etc are NOT recognised under the law as contracts and they really aren't because the child has no effective say.

Signing people up for military schools or signing people off on medical procedures doesn't adversely affect the child's (as a non-party to the contract) legal liabilities and rights under the law and that is what matters here. Military school or no military school, the child still enjoys the same rights under the law and the same liabilities under the law. The contractual nature of these things do not unilaterally alter the non-party's rights and liabilities under the law while offering them a supposed benefit under the law (whether you see it as a benefit or not is a different matter). Military school grants the child, as a non-party a military education. Not consenting the child to a medical procedure gives the child the benefit of protection from intrusion by doctors (whether justified or not its a different matter). But the child's rights and liabilities under the law as a whole are not changed. The child didn't for instance, sign away his right to receive notice under the common law.

By contrast, if parents were allowed to sign up the children so that they can be subject to the right of the government to make laws that fundamentally alter their rights, that is unacceptable. There is absolutely no comparison.

You should also stop questioning my understanding of contract law because if you consider transporting your children to another jurisdiction to be an act of contract law (or revoking their citizenship through a guardian to be such), clearly you lack even the most fundamental understanding of contract law yourself and you are in no position whatsoever to question my position as a law student.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:56 pm**

The New Sea Territory wrote:
Ifreann wrote:The anarchist party. *nods*

Oxymoron.

1. A party isn't a state, and I don't think they even necessarily have to be hierarchical, so I disagree.
2. Did you not notice that Ifreann was joking?

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:01 pm**

I agree. The only role of government should be to protect our freedom and liberty. People organized in groups only have those rights which those individuals themselves have, and inasmuch as government is a group of people, the powers of government should end where individual rights begin. I believe that since >99% of the world's population regards government as necessary, voluntary contributions could easily replace taxes if governments didn't engage in reckless wars and didn't just waste money all the time.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:02 pm**

San Lumen wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
you are conflating a distrust/disengagement with the voting system with political apathy

there can be an overlap but there doesn't have to be

also, what does the Sahara Desert and the failure of the education system have to do with anything?

Being disengaged from the political process is apathy. I'm sorry the education system has failed you so that you see voting and politics as trivial and a waste of time. the Western Sahara which is a region south of Morocco with no formal government. You wouldn't have to pay taxes. If you didn't have taxes where would the government get money from? Why don't you get all your apathetic friends and refuse to pay taxes since you see it as theft. Sue the government when the the IRS garnishes your wages among other things.

The purpose of the education system shouldn't be to indoctrinate the people into regularly re-affirming the political process.

I'm also not sure what the Western Sahara proposition really brings to the table. It proves nothing beyond the fact that the world has largely been taken over by tax collection states (which I find fundementally unjust and coercive). You are correct in assuming that I wouldn't want to move to the Western Sahara but I'm not sure what that proves since the availability of tax free options are so few.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:02 pm**

Celsuis wrote:I agree. The only role of government should be to protect our freedom and liberty. People organized in groups only have those rights which those individuals themselves have, and inasmuch as government is a group of people, the powers of government should end where individual rights begin. I believe that since >99% of the world's population regards government as necessary, voluntary contributions could easily replace taxes if governments didn't engage in reckless wars and didn't just waste money all the time.

this is exactly right

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:06 pm**

Celsuis wrote:I agree. The only role of government should be to protect our freedom and liberty. People organized in groups only have those rights which those individuals themselves have, and inasmuch as government is a group of people, the powers of government should end where individual rights begin. I believe that since >99% of the world's population regards government as necessary, voluntary contributions could easily replace taxes if governments didn't engage in reckless wars and didn't just waste money all the time.

Given that most people who approve of charity give so little to charity, I doubt people would voluntarily provide sufficient funding.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:07 pm**

Conscentia wrote:
The New Sea Territory wrote:Oxymoron.

1. A party isn't a state, and I don't think they even necessarily have to be hierarchical, so I disagree.

Wikipedia wrote:"A political party is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party

Not anarchistic. This is why anarchism historically has mostly been confined to the labor movement.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:10 pm**

Celsuis wrote:I agree. The only role of government should be to protect our freedom and liberty. People organized in groups only have those rights which those individuals themselves have, and inasmuch as government is a group of people, the powers of government should end where individual rights begin. I believe that since >99% of the world's population regards government as necessary, voluntary contributions could easily replace taxes if governments didn't engage in reckless wars and didn't just waste money all the time.

If taxation is theft, the wage system must also be.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:12 pm**

Conscentia wrote:
Celsuis wrote:I agree. The only role of government should be to protect our freedom and liberty. People organized in groups only have those rights which those individuals themselves have, and inasmuch as government is a group of people, the powers of government should end where individual rights begin. I believe that since >99% of the world's population regards government as necessary, voluntary contributions could easily replace taxes if governments didn't engage in reckless wars and didn't just waste money all the time.

Given that most people who approve of charity give so little to charity, I doubt people would voluntarily provide sufficient funding.

The people that consistently give the largest percent of their income earn the least, and for those who earn more, usually >50% of their income goes to the government. So, people either can't afford to give to charity or believe government's doing it for them. Even with these obstacles, US charity contributions were $290.89 billion in 2010, which is almost 2% of GDP. That's huge.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:13 pm**

The New Sea Territory wrote:
Celsuis wrote:I agree. The only role of government should be to protect our freedom and liberty. People organized in groups only have those rights which those individuals themselves have, and inasmuch as government is a group of people, the powers of government should end where individual rights begin. I believe that since >99% of the world's population regards government as necessary, voluntary contributions could easily replace taxes if governments didn't engage in reckless wars and didn't just waste money all the time.

If taxation is theft, the wage system must also be.

Employment is voluntary. Taxation is not.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:16 pm**

Celsuis wrote:
The New Sea Territory wrote:
If taxation is theft, the wage system must also be.

Employment is voluntary. Taxation is not.

Employment is not what I said. I said the wage system.

The wage system is not voluntary as it is maintained through the force of the state. The system where workers create products, the capitalist boss sells these products, then pays workers a fraction of what their labor is actually worth. That system, because it is maintained under the threat of violence, is no different than a government taxing its citizens and giving them a fraction of their payments back in the form of roads (because most goes towards military spending and corporate welfare).

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:18 pm**

The New Sea Territory wrote:
Celsuis wrote:
Employment is voluntary. Taxation is not.

Employment is not what I said. I said the wage system.

The wage system is not voluntary as it is maintained through the force of the state. The system where workers create products, the capitalist boss sells these products, then pays workers a fraction of what their labor is actually worth. That system, because it is maintained under the threat of violence, is no different than a government taxing its citizens and giving them a fraction of their payments back in the form of roads (because most goes towards military spending and corporate welfare).

How is it maintained by threat of violence, exactly? Workers create product and their employers sell that product and pay them voluntarily. Taxation is coercive and involuntary.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:21 pm**

The New Sea Territory wrote:
Ifreann wrote:The anarchist party. *nods*

Oxymoron.

That's the joke.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:24 pm**

Celsuis wrote:
The New Sea Territory wrote:
Employment is not what I said. I said the wage system.

The wage system is not voluntary as it is maintained through the force of the state. The system where workers create products, the capitalist boss sells these products, then pays workers a fraction of what their labor is actually worth. That system, because it is maintained under the threat of violence, is no different than a government taxing its citizens and giving them a fraction of their payments back in the form of roads (because most goes towards military spending and corporate welfare).

How is it maintained by threat of violence, exactly? Workers create product and their employers sell that product and pay them voluntarily. Taxation is coercive and involuntary.

You, again, missed what I said.

If workers ever tried to actually earn what they create from their boss (which would, effectively, mean overthrowing him), the state would retaliate with violence. The entire wage system is protected by the threat of state violence.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:26 pm**

The New Sea Territory wrote:
Celsuis wrote:
How is it maintained by threat of violence, exactly? Workers create product and their employers sell that product and pay them voluntarily. Taxation is coercive and involuntary.

You, again, missed what I said.

If workers ever tried to actually earn what they create from their boss...

Labor theory of value is bunk. Labor has no inherent value and the creations of the modern laborer involves significantly more capital input (which are correspondingly significantly more expensive) than actual labor.
Your complaint is based on a fallacy.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:26 pm**

The New Sea Territory wrote:
Celsuis wrote:
How is it maintained by threat of violence, exactly? Workers create product and their employers sell that product and pay them voluntarily. Taxation is coercive and involuntary.

You, again, missed what I said.

If workers ever tried to actually earn what they create from their boss (which would, effectively, mean overthrowing him), the state would retaliate with violence. The entire wage system is protected by the threat of state violence.

Um, no. Workers can't usurp product they create in employment because that material isn't theirs. That would be theft. However, they are free to create and sell as they wish what they produce with resources they actually own.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:07 pm**

The New Sea Territory wrote:
Conscentia wrote:1. A party isn't a state, and I don't think they even necessarily have to be hierarchical, so I disagree.

Wikipedia wrote:"A political party is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party
Not anarchistic. This is why anarchism historically has mostly been confined to the labor movement.

1. Political power does not have to be distributed hierarchically.
2. The Oxford English Dictionary has a different definition.

NationStates

Taxes are a form of Theft