SAFE Network a True Free Market System?

[betterthantrav]

One more example…

Your honor my neighbor needed money for cancer treatment and my other neighbor couldn’t afford rent this month, so I held the rest of my neighborhood up at gun point and they gave me money to pay for the cancer treatment and rent. This would not hold up in court for an individual person, so why is the government allowed to do it?

[Al_Kafir]

@Traktion

am always surprised how many mental back flips people are prepared to make to justify taxation.

Lol…yup…I’m a mental gymnast…

@Traktion

Asserting that I don’t own the fiat cash in my wallet

You own the fiat in your wallet…less any tax…LOL

@Traktion

f I choose to barter instead, I am still requested to provide fiat cash based on the value of the transaction. Why would this be the case if the state just wanted its fiat cash back?

The state doesn’t just want it’s fiat back, it wants you to contribute to provision of infrastructure and welfare - according to the general consensus of the public and coded into law. Still, nothing is stolen.

@Traktion

Again, definitions aren’t identified through consensus. They must be axiomatic.

I don’t know what you mean? Definitions of what? Legal definitions, dictionary definitions? Whatever it is you think is axiomatic, clearly is not.

[betterthantrav]

@Al_Kafir

Lol…yup…I’m a mental gymnast…

Your gymnastics are impressive sir lol

[Traktion]

@Al_Kafir

The state doesn’t just want it’s fiat back, it wants you to contribute to provision of infrastructure and welfare - according to the general consensus of the public and coded into law. Still, nothing is stolen.

Right, so that cobblers about ownership nof fiat cash has nothing to do with it!

Why does a ‘general consensus’ mean that taking property is no longer theft?

If there are 10 people in a room and 6 decide to take everything from the other 4, is that general consensus? Does that mean no theft occurred?

@Al_Kafir

I don’t know what you mean? Definitions of what? Legal definitions, dictionary definitions? Whatever it is you think is axiomatic, clearly is not.

Basic definitions. You don’t need a policemen or a politician to tell you what they are.

You know what rape, murder and theft are, right? sex without consent, death without consent, taking of property without consent. Do you think anyone can disagree with any of these?

[betterthantrav]

@Traktion

Why does a ‘general consensus’ mean that taking property is no longer theft?

Another example…

Your honor my neighbor needed money for cancer treatment and my other neighbor couldn’t afford rent this month, so my neighborhood held a vote. 7 voted to give money, 2 did not show up to vote, and 1 refused to vote. When asked to pay the neighbor who refused to vote also refused to pay, so we locked him up in my basement until he does. This would also not hold up in court.

[Al_Kafir]

@Traktion

Right, so that cobblers about ownership nof fiat cash has nothing to do with it!

Pretty much, my point is it’s not legally theft because the Govt only takes tax in fiat, no other “property”, so technically it is not theft …it just isn’t. Like I say we can argue whether it is morally theft, but not legally, or by any axiomatic definition of theft - which brings us back to the original moral dilemma.

@Traktion

Why does a ‘general consensus’ mean that taking property is no longer theft?

It doesn’t and no private property is taken - only fiat.

@Traktion

If there are 10 people in a room and 6 decide to take everything from the other 4, is that general consensus?

Hmmmm…erm…sod it, why not…YES

@Traktion

Does that mean no theft occurred?

No

@Traktion

You know what rape, murder and theft are, right? sex without consent, death without consent, taking of property without consent. Do you think anyone can disagree with any of these?

No…

[Nigel]

And a few political rants lol? Makes this forum sound serious…

[betterthantrav]

@Al_Kafir

Pretty much, my point is it’s not legally theft because the Govt only takes tax in fiat, no other “property”, so technically it is not theft .

The government will take other property if you can’t afford or are unwilling to pay taxes.

Edit: to include taking your most personal property “your body” and locking you in prison.

[betterthantrav]

@Al_Kafir

It doesn’t and no private property is taken - only fiat.

See above comment.

[betterthantrav]

@Al_Kafir

If there are 10 people in a room and 6 decide to take everything from the other 4, is that general consensus?

By definition yes it is general consensus.

gen·er·al
ˈjen(ə)rəl/
adjective
affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

con·sen·sus
kənˈsensəs/Submit
noun
general agreement.

[Warren]

@jreighley

Hmm. Those weren’t the ones I was talking about.

I would say it is a race to sustainability. If you tax too little, revenue is short – Tax too much - capital flight… The arbitrage of these markets will get even more efficient because of technologies like maidSAFE…

Even NY is advertising Tax amnesty to move your capital there… Are they in a “race to the bottom”?

Yes, these jurisdictions are getting played in a race to the bottom, we need a rule that prevents them from making concession that collectively undermine their revenue base and shift the burden to lower income tax payers through indirect venues.

[Al_Kafir]

@betterthantrav

The government will take other property if you can’t afford or are unwilling to pay taxes.

I would think that this would not be part of the Tax system. By breaking the law of the land and not paying taxes, the Taxman would go through the courts to order the property sold to recover the debt - as with any other debt. This is my understanding anyway.

@betterthantrav

Edit: to include taking your most personal property “your body” and locking you in prison.

Yes, we lock up people who break the law.

[betterthantrav]

If theft is taking anything with out consent and taxes are not theft, then where is the consent? Im lost on this one, please help.

[betterthantrav]

@Al_Kafir

I would think that this would not be part of the Tax system.

This is the coercive part of taxes. You can not have consent with coercion.

[betterthantrav]

@Al_Kafir

By breaking the law of the land and not paying taxes, the Taxman would go through the courts to order the property sold to recover the debt -

So what you are saying is that taxes are a form of legal theft.

[jreighley]

@Warren

Yes, these jurisdictions are getting played in a race to the bottom, we need a rule that prevents them from making concession that collectively undermine their revenue base and shift the burden to lower income tax payers through indirect venues.

Undermining state’s sovereignty over their own affairs is something tyrants try to do…

[Al_Kafir]

@betterthantrav

So what you are saying is that taxes are a form of legal theft.

Lol…no, completely the opposite.

@betterthantrav

If theft is taking anything with out consent and taxes are not theft, then where is the consent? Im lost on this one, please help.

Please re-read post 112.

@betterthantrav

This is the coercive part of taxes.

No, this is selling property to recover a debt by due legal process.

@betterthantrav

You can not have consent with coercion.

Agreed. There is no coercion…lol

[Traktion]

Ha! What has politics got to do with it? I am just defining what a free market is and asking those who disagree to make their case.

Politicians have no interest in applying principles in a universal way, nor any interest in definitions either. Facts are of no use to people who seek to bend the truth to their advantage.

[betterthantrav]

@Traktion

Ha! What has politics got to do with it? I

Your right, check out the new title.

[betterthantrav]

@Al_Kafir

No, this is selling property to recover a debt by due legal process.

So, threating to “recover a debt” if taxes are not paid is not coercion?

Edit: you also can’t have a debt without a legal contract.