"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

The point is it's all relative, you may think having to pay tax on your income or having to register on the electoral roll is the same as for instance being a hairdresser in Saddams Iraq where the Ba'ath party would expect you to inform them of the conversations your customers are having when you are cutting their hair, and suspicion will fall on you if you don't at least report some of those customers for having made a subversive remark (regardless of whether they did or didn't).
Knowing that in that respect you face the choice of torture/imprisonment or worse or inflicting it indirectly on other people so as to shield yourself from that fate.
You can tell yourself you are living in a state of constant invigilitation and terror because you will be fined for not registering on the electoral roll, or be punished for refusing to pay tax on services whether you use them or not. You make think that's comparable to a totalitarian existence, you may think the methodology is different but the outcome is the same but I don't and I don't think the people who escaped such states to live in western democracies would agree with you either.
This is the unbridgeable gap, I take no issue with libertarianism in itself even if I don't believe it to be practical (and certainly not currently) but I'm not in fear of summary execution or torture, I can say what I like (even with the liberal political correctness agenda that's gone too far I'm only in fear of being slightly ostracised) and in return I have to make a contribution to the society in which I lived monetarily......that's how it is, if you want to see me as a slave who is glad of his chains than I doubt anything I've said will convince you otherwise.
I would only suggest that futility works both ways.

You are confusing principle with practicality.

When you do that it becomes practically expedient to commit all manner of atrocities. And this state in which we live routinely does just that. Our authoritarians have figured out that ultimate control is best enforced with fewer fences. It's just a difference in style, not principle. But that doesn't stop them doing all the things you are grateful they don't do to you to other people, removed, out of sight out of mind.

In effect you are grateful that another individual grants you rights. I find such acceptance of fundamental inequality difficult to understand, especially when we spend our whoe time campaigning for equality for minorities. What about equality for the majority?

[Niall_Quinn]

President elect, folks.

His Hillary moment.

[Goonermerree]

Let's test this to see if there is any compatibility between freedom (better termed liberty) and government.

To avoid red herrings such as your house having the benefit of being protected by the fire service by default, or your person being protected by the police by default, we go and live with a friend in a detached home on private land without a neighbour within a mile, and we resolve to have no contact with police, ambulance or any other state service regardless of what befalls us. We have no children so we don't require indoctrination services, we have no car, we literally live in a shack at the end of a neighbour's garden.

We have jobs. We rent a private, non-UK based satellite Internet service. We purchase fuel to run our own generator so we are off the grid. We collect rainwater in a barrel. We only conduct business with non-UK companies. Our payment is delivered in cash by a courier each month and we don't use banking services.

What happens if:

1. We refuse to register on the electoral roll?
2. We withhold payment of tax?

Explain how liberty works under these circumstances and what the outcome of our claim on liberty will be if we exercise that condition and refuse to comply with the state in all cases.

Next, tell me what happens if we exercise our right to self defence under these conditions?

As you can see, there is no fundamental difference between the state in the UK and the state in Castro's Cuba, other than the probability it would be harder for the state to find you in Cuba.

The state is most certainly an authoritarian entity that hires thugs to commit violence against all those who refuse to collaborate with it. How can you argue otherwise given the self evident facts?

I think your only argument can be that sovereignty reside with the monarch and we are therefore automatically subject to the authority of the monarch. Unfortunately that authority allegedly is granted directly by God - yes really, I'm not making that up. It's God that directly intervenes and raises the monarch above all others and grants him/ her the additional rights to command and govern.

But what happens if you don't believe in God?

The state is the biggest myth and the biggest scam ever perpetrated. And its main concern is in the execution of the second biggest scam ever perpetrated, the money fraud. Under these conditions it is impossible for liberty to exist.

You'd be put in prison or shot for typing that in Cuba.

[Niall_Quinn]

The point is it's all relative, you may think having to pay tax on your income or having to register on the electoral roll is the same as for instance being a hairdresser in Saddams Iraq where the Ba'ath party would expect you to inform them of the conversations your customers are having when you are cutting their hair, and suspicion will fall on you if you don't at least report some of those customers for having made a subversive remark (regardless of whether they did or didn't).
Knowing that in that respect you face the choice of torture/imprisonment or worse or inflicting it indirectly on other people so as to shield yourself from that fate.
You can tell yourself you are living in a state of constant invigilitation and terror because you will be fined for not registering on the electoral roll, or be punished for refusing to pay tax on services whether you use them or not. You make think that's comparable to a totalitarian existence, you may think the methodology is different but the outcome is the same but I don't and I don't think the people who escaped such states to live in western democracies would agree with you either.
This is the unbridgeable gap, I take no issue with libertarianism in itself even if I don't believe it to be practical (and certainly not currently) but I'm not in fear of summary execution or torture, I can say what I like (even with the liberal political correctness agenda that's gone too far I'm only in fear of being slightly ostracised) and in return I have to make a contribution to the society in which I lived monetarily......that's how it is, if you want to see me as a slave who is glad of his chains than I doubt anything I've said will convince you otherwise.
I would only suggest that futility works both ways.

Under the conditions I detailed, pose a moral argument for taxation. And ensure it conforms with the law set down by the state. All law, there can be no diametric contradictions.

I'll save you the time. There is no conceivable moral justification and you know it. There is no law that can be argued in the context of the whole body of law and certainly none in the common law, indeed taxation is a very serious crime under the common law. Taxation is one of the ultimate contradictions and also one of the best indicators of the illegitimacy of the state and the goons that constitute the state.

[Niall_Quinn]

You'd be put in prison or shot for typing that in Cuba.

Again, confusion between principle and practise. All you are saying is that one thug is more energetic than another.

[Niall_Quinn]

Totalitarian: relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Is taxation totalitarian in nature? Most certainly. It is practised by the state, and only the state, it is dictated by the state and the thugs hired by state demand total compliance. Worse than the poor Iraqi hairdresser as in matters of taxation the state demands with menaces that you report yourself.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You are confusing principle with practicality.

When you do that it becomes practically expedient to commit all manner of atrocities. And this state in which we live routinely does just that. Our authoritarians have figured out that ultimate control is best enforced with fewer fences. It's just a difference in style, not principle. But that doesn't stop them doing all the things you are grateful they don't do to you to other people, removed, out of sight out of mind.

In effect you are grateful that another individual grants you rights. I find such acceptance of fundamental inequality difficult to understand, especially when we spend our whoe time campaigning for equality for minorities. What about equality for the majority?

No what I'm telling you is I don't give a fuck about the principle in comparison to the practical, in any real sense it doesn't really matter to me how I came by these freedoms the fact is they are there. It's not a case of being eternally grateful, it's an acknowledgement that it could be a lot worse.
Nothing should ever be settled and everything should be a matter for debate, there are plenty of things countries I consider free societies do that fly in the face of that concept and it's not about excusing it but I won't ally myself with those who scream foul at the outrages commited by these societies and excuse far worse ones elsewhere (and I'm not accusing you of that, nor in fact have I claimed that to be the case).

[Goonermerree]

Let's test this to see if there is any compatibility between freedom (better termed liberty) and government.

To avoid red herrings such as your house having the benefit of being protected by the fire service by default, or your person being protected by the police by default, we go and live with a friend in a detached home on private land without a neighbour within a mile, and we resolve to have no contact with police, ambulance or any other state service regardless of what befalls us. We have no children so we don't require indoctrination services, we have no car, we literally live in a shack at the end of a neighbour's garden.

We have jobs. We rent a private, non-UK based satellite Internet service. We purchase fuel to run our own generator so we are off the grid. We collect rainwater in a barrel. We only conduct business with non-UK companies. Our payment is delivered in cash by a courier each month and we don't use banking services.

What happens if:

1. We refuse to register on the electoral roll?
2. We withhold payment of tax?

Explain how liberty works under these circumstances and what the outcome of our claim on liberty will be if we exercise that condition and refuse to comply with the state in all cases.

Next, tell me what happens if we exercise our right to self defence under these conditions?

As you can see, there is no fundamental difference between the state in the UK and the state in Castro's Cuba, other than the probability it would be harder for the state to find you in Cuba.

The state is most certainly an authoritarian entity that hires thugs to commit violence against all those who refuse to collaborate with it. How can you argue otherwise given the self evident facts?

I think your only argument can be that sovereignty reside with the monarch and we are therefore automatically subject to the authority of the monarch. Unfortunately that authority allegedly is granted directly by God - yes really, I'm not making that up. It's God that directly intervenes and raises the monarch above all others and grants him/ her the additional rights to command and govern.

But what happens if you don't believe in God?

The state is the biggest myth and the biggest scam ever perpetrated. And its main concern is in the execution of the second biggest scam ever perpetrated, the money fraud. Under these conditions it is impossible for liberty to exist.

I hope you're not getting that sent on a lorry that used the road, or that the satellite dish didn't come in the same way. And you better not be using our telephone systems for your internet. I don't appreciate my taxes paying for you in that way.

[Niall_Quinn]

I hope you're not getting that sent on a lorry that used the road, or that the satellite dish didn't come in the same way. And you better not be using our telephone systems for your internet. I don't appreciate my taxes paying for you in that way.

The cost of the road transport is built into the private delivery charge levied by the courier firm that provides a service I can choose to consume or not consume. And regardless of what service I'm using for comms, if it is private then all taxes and other charges are taken into account by whoever pays for the service. You haven't paid a penny for me and under such conditions you never would. So do you now feel you can legitimately rob me?

I think some people have forgotten what private enterprise and choice actually is.

[Niall_Quinn]

No what I'm telling you is I don't give a fuck about the principle in comparison to the practical, in any real sense it doesn't really matter to me how I came by these freedoms the fact is they are there. It's not a case of being eternally grateful, it's an acknowledgement that it could be a lot worse.
Nothing should ever be settled and everything should be a matter for debate, there are plenty of things countries I consider free societies do that fly in the face of that concept and it's not about excusing it but I won't ally myself with those who scream foul at the outrages commited by these societies and excuse far worse ones elsewhere (and I'm not accusing you of that, nor in fact have I claimed that to be the case).

Well you are honest. Provided your concept of liberty is upheld it is acceptable to infringe mine. Even though I would choose to have no impact on you whatsoever, your system demands that I comply with it. I every way, that is totalitarianism. Your carrot is you won't kill or torture me. Instead you will rob me or cage me if I fail to comply. As I said, regardless of the support it enjoys, the state (not the nation) and government has zero legitimacy in any discussion concerning liberty.