As an voluntarist I believe that everyone should interact on a voluntary (non-violent) basis. This generally means I support concepts such as property rights and abhor theft and its socially acceptable counterpart, taxation. I am also very much a believer that whether or not we “suffer” when we pay taxes depends entirely on how we choose to perceive the “payment”. The question of whether or not taxation is theft depends entirely upon how we perceive property rights.
I write this today as I struggle with the reality of writing large checks to the government. It is one thing to have your taxes withheld from your paycheck (you never saw the money), it is another thing entirely when you must write the check after getting to see the money in your bank account for a couple of weeks. Hopefully this article will help others feel better about writing their own checks to pay taxes.
Why Perception Matters
In order to perceive something as theft you must first believe something is yours. This is something that manifests in ego. The concept of “me” and “mine” depends upon the perception that others are “separate”, ie not me. If you choose to live in the now, to love your neighbor as yourself, practice generosity, and see the world through the lens of abundance then there is no need to “cling” to property.
It is the ego that attributes things to our identity. We see ourselves as our story and our possessions. The ego is driven by fear and it fears death and sees possessions as a means of securing life (and status).
There is a certain amount of truth associated with the need to secure, food, shelter, and clothing. It is also true that the drive for increasing our quality of life makes all of society better off. We all benefit when economic incentives are properly aligned and we all see a lower quality of life when they are out of alignment.
Any suffering we experience while paying taxes is based entirely on how we choose to perceive “gain” and “loss” which depends only on our own ego and choices.
Is Property a Social Construct?
All property is an abstract idea that is generally agreed upon by all. Absent any legal framework possession is the law. This law is engrained in all of us and intuitively understood by children and even many animals.
Obviously possession does not scale; you cannot maintain active control and defense of all your possessions all of the time. So people adopted contractual agreements. In these agreements one person possesses things on behalf of another individual. This would be like hiring someone to house sit while you are at work. The individual house sitting would be in physical possession of the house, but has agreed to return possession to you upon your return.
It would be a logistical nightmare for everyone to ensure all of their property is physically possessed by someone they have hired at all times. Assuming you had a small island with just two people on it, they would quickly reach an agreement on “who owned what” that extended beyond physical possession.
In the event there was a disagreement about who owned what, physical possession will become the default law.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law
Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not.” — wikipedia.org
There are three ways for someone to have their rightful property returned to them:
take it back without violence
take it back with violence
social pressure (negating contracts)
When something is physically taken it is enforcing the law of possession and doesn’t involve any violence. The property might be taken and retaken over and over all without any violence. This should be permitted in an entirely voluntary society because there is no coercion, aggression, or violence. There is simply a property dispute being settled in a nonviolent manner.
Take it with Violence
Usually those who suffer from perceived thievery employ increasing levels of physical security until eventually violence becomes the only direct means of retaking stolen property. This is what happens when two kingdoms go to war over a territory. This violence is what voluntarists wish to do away with because it is perceived as unnecessary and uncivilized.
Social Pressure
When social pressure is used there is also no violence. Instead, anyone possessing property of the perceived thief may simply claim ownership of the thief’s property in their possession. They will either reimburse the victim of the thief, or keep it for themselves. The concept being that a thief forfeits the benefit of having their contracts enforced when they are found to violate others property rights.
Anyone attempting to employ social pressure is also subject to being judged by their peers. To make effective use of social pressure, everyone needs to have consensus on who owns what. Without this consensus, attempting to negate a contract with a thief exposes your own contracts to being negated by others. This is where things get tricky.
Nonviolent Government Consensus is Social Pressure
Government is a consensus process whereby most people “agree” that certain judges appointed by “elected politicians” get to decide consensus. The masses are unable to evaluate every contract and/or property dispute so they defer to a governmental process.
If we assume that the government was denied the right to physical violence and restricted to making judgment calls, then the people could use those judgments as the consensus basis for applying social pressure without worrying about social retaliation.
Voluntary “Taxation” in Nonviolent Government
Once people adopt a consensus driven by government, then all non-physical possession becomes subject to the judgments made by government. This means all bank deposits, all real estate that you do not physically occupy (and defend), everything except the clothes on your back, coins in your pocket, and private keys in your brain.
Your ability to contract with others depends upon being able to trust others. If you hire someone to house sit (to prevent government recognizing another squatter), you are at risk of the government recognizing the person you hired as the “rightful owner”. Your hired house sitter is also at risk of having his own house (which he isn’t occupying) being repossessed by someone else. Everyone else has deferred to the “government’s opinion” of who owns what.
As soon as people give up their individual judgment to a system of governance everyone becomes vulnerable. They become prisoners in a dilemma of their own creation. The only way to change the system without the system’s permission, is if the majority can reach consensus “outside the system” and then change at once. Any minority that defects faces extreme risks of having all their property and contracts nullified.
Once government becomes the arbiter of property rights, it becomes the de-facto owner of everything that is not directly possessed and physically controlled by its rightful owner. Whether this is “good” or “bad” depends upon your perception. Is it bad that Bill Gates owns assets worth billions of dollars? If Bill Gates can have effectively unlimited wealth (from perspective of the average man), then why can’t someone else, like a king, have even more?
If you perceive government as the owner of everything not in your physical possession, then there is no reason to feel stolen from when taxes are paid. It is only in our resistance to the reality that government “owns” everything not in our possession that we suffer.
Contract Law
The real issue boils down to resolving contract disputes in a way that doesn’t give the judge arbitrary power. If the judge gains arbitrary power over all contracts then all individuals give control (and therefore de-facto ownership of) their property to government consensus.
All property rights aside from physical possession are derived from the power to contract. What is the power to contract?
The right of property implies the right to make contracts about that property: to give it away or to exchange titles of ownership for the property of another person. Unfortunately, many libertarians, devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society.
Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party.
— The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
Rothbard makes a clear distinction between contracts that create “promises” or “expectations” from those which are purely conditional. A mere promise is not enforceable.
The basic reason is that the only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of man, alienable by man. All physical property owned by a person is alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily.
Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. (Read more on Rothbard’s Theory of Contracts and Property Rights)
How Nonviolent Government can result in absolute Despotism
Based upon this theory of property and contracts we can draw the following conclusions with respect to contract law and property rights:
- Physical possession is the foundation of property
- Contracts are required to secure title to property not directly possessed
- Social pressure is required to enforce contracts
- Social pressure requires societal consensus to have meaningful power
- Individuals are physically unable (time, space, energy) to directly evaluate all evidence to reach independent consensus.
- Therefore, individuals choose to defer to judgment of 3rd parties
- Society uses elections to directly select the “most trusted judge”
- Judge’s rulings become law which is enforced by social pressure
- Unchecked power over interpretation and enforcement of contracts makes Judge de-facto owner of everything not in physical possession of true owner.
- Influence over all indirectly held property gives Judge leverage over all property and people
- People become enslaved by the social pressure controlled by the Judge (king)
All of this is possible without initiating violence against individuals, but comes at the expense of effectively nullifying the very concept of contracts. The nonaggression principle must be applied to the interpretation and enforcement of legitimate contracts. A biased interpretation of a contract is an aggression by the judge against everyone else. The challenge is how do people reach a consensus that the judge acted in bad faith and what consequence does the judge face?
If the king owns everything (due to his power to set social consensus on dispute resolution), then all contracts among men a mere suggestions that the king may bias his judgment toward in the event the king has no preference. This is neither good nor bad. It is merely a reflection of “all the people on the island” choosing to recognize the king as the ultimate owner of everything.
Cognitive Dissonance
The problem most voluntarists, anarchists, and libertarians suffer from is a belief that they own something they do not. They feel offended when the government prints money that “devalues” their federal reserve notes. The federal reserve is the one entitled to issue its own notes and the rest of society is free to accept them as payment. They feel cheated when they work for a company incorporated under the laws of a government and then that company withholds part of “their pay”. They feel cheated when their bank accounts are frozen and/or seized when the terms of their contract stipulated the interpretation of the bank deposit contract was subject to interpretation of the government.
It is our belief that we “own” these assets and are entitled to certain “interpretations” of contracts that is the cause of our mental anguish. It is our denial of the reality that societal consensus is that government owns everything that causes us to suffer.
Changing Societal Consensus
If men are to be free to create legitimate contracts involving their property, then they require a means to reach consensus on who owns what. This means they require a means for dispute resolution in contracts. This can largely be managed by tracking all property of meaningful value in a public ledger and then defining “smart contracts” that transfer ownership.
These smart contracts would allow for any number of judges, appeals, and oracles. Any smart contract that does not carry provisions for dispute resolution is likely vulnerable to changing circumstances in the chaotic world we live in.
A robust smart contract platform would hold the judges and oracles liable to continuous public scrutiny. This is the opposite of today’s government where officials are effectively immune to any liability for their actions while in office.
Society needs Consensus outside of Contracts
Lastly society needs a means of resolving disputes among people whom have no contract and no money. This means a system where everyone is always subject to public consensus to some extent whether they want to be or not. This consensus is known as reputation and it is something that is incredibly valuable to us, but something owned by everyone else.
Reaching a consensus on reputation is perhaps the most challenging problem faced by voluntarists looking to setup a free society. If this nut can be cracked, then I believe everything else will fall into place
Conclusion
We live in a society that has deemed the government owner of all property. Anything you receive by contract comes with strings attached and is not your property. It is impossible to have real property rights and contracts while society at large believes everything belongs to the government and is willing to let government edicts dictate property rights.
If we are to have a free society, then we need a consensus algorithm that can enforce contracts where judges and arbiters do not have unlimited power of reinterpretation and selective enforcement. The algorithm must consist of decentralized judges by a jury of peers and be completely free from hierarchy. The judges and jurors themselves must be liable for their judgments.
It is only through decentralization of our courts that we can ever hope to have a system that enforces contracts without effectively giving all property over to an elected king.
Until such a system can be developed, I highly recommend sparing yourself unnecessary mental suffering caused by operating under the belief that you can own anything. Instead, be grateful for what the government lets you have and invest your time, money, and sacred honor into creating and supporting systems that may one day let you truly own property for the first time.
@dantheman: here the spanish translation of your article:
La Percepción lo cambia Todo - ¿Son los Impuestos realmente un hurto?
Wow! It's nice to see this method paying off for you!
Congrats and excellent job building the community.
Thank you @papa-pepper!
You're welcome.
I'm so glad that this is working and moving forward to build steemit up internationally.
Having been a small business owner, I know the pain of writing out those checks - but there was a point when government overreach took it's toll. They literally had departments within the same construct coming into our business whenever they wanted - each time demanding a fee every time they crossed my threshold to dig for anything they could write up and tack on more fees and penalties. It was a classic case of one hand not knowing what the other was doing, not caring, and demanding payment anyway or they have "the right" to shut you down. That's small business in food service in New York. And then after being closed 3 years, they froze our assets because of "back taxes" on those years that we closed but "they never got the paperwork." That was theft in my eyes...and caused my family the loss of our house and to be late on all our bills. We're still recovering - and I'll think long and hard before I have another business like that where government regulators can take what they want, when they want it.
But then the question must be posed, who owns the government?
It could be argued that in a democracy and representative republic, the People do. The People (ie. certain amount of majority) defined the government and can change it.
So does that alter your conclusion to the People own everything and have chosen to allow for some semblance of individual ownership by proxy?
The creation of property laws, the abolishment of owning people, and the rules which govern fair trade, taxation for the good of the People and the maintenance of their government, have all been decided by the People (and could be changed by the People as well).
Nobody "owns" a government, just as nobody "owns" another person. Governments are simply groups of individuals - only they claim magical rights to do things that nobody else has any moral or legal right to do.
"The People" have no right to decide how individuals may act, so long as those individuals are not attempting to likewise restrict the actions of others. There is no right of "the People" to dictate behavior and there is no moral obligation for anyone to obey such edicts. The only obligation or right that anyone has in this regard is to refrain from initiating force against others and to defend oneself against such force. If they have not consented to be ruled, then they cannot rightfully be ruled, regardless of how many people claim otherwise.
The rich own the government, it just plays along with the people if that's the only thing that will stop a revolution
It is an easy thing to say. But how practical is that statement? If you earn a certain amount, do you get a letter, badge, or special number to call? Is there a secret handshake you must learn? Let's be practical. Many 'government' workers don't make that much money. I know many people rich and poor, common and extraordinary, yet all have the same single vote. Americans, both natural and naturalized, have the same rights and weight at the ballot box. Collectively, we determine who is in power, what laws will govern us, and for better or worse will determine our future. But it is tough to hold accountable the shortcomings of the entire nation and easier to point to a nebulous entity we call 'government' for the things we don't like.
If you are worth a certain amount, do you get to make laws? No. There are oversights, checks and balances, etc. Can everyday citizens create a law, no, but they can start the process just like anyone with the same potential outcome, a law.
The same is true to strike down a law and even a constitutional amendment. Prohibition started as a grass-roots effort by housewives, who didn't even yet have the right to vote. By the time Congress enacted the 18th amendment, 33 states already had enacted their own acts. It was then repealed several years later by voters who supported FDR for president. (part of his platform was the repeal of prohibition)
People do have power. For better or worse, our fate is in our own hands, since the American Revolution.
Don't believe me? Pick a law you don't like. Research to find out who signed it into law and how that person came to be in their position. Did people vote for them and they earned a majority? Look to see who in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Did people vote for them? Find the author of the bill and where the idea actually originated from. Why was the bill proposed and by whom? Were they an common citizen, was the bill intended to help people? Every law has a history. I cannot think of any single law which did not have the oversight of an elected official.
bribe congress look at the climate deniers iraq with military industrial complex
People in all walks of life and occupations can be swayed via bribes. We know this as voters. Perhaps it is up to us to better vet those whom we vote into power as our representatives. Ultimately we the People decide who are in the top local, state, and federal positions.
Ultimately the people who have no grasp of reality are deceived by the media which thrives on false facts and popularity more than information and then those voted into office can cast their vote whichever way they want in response to money which the public can not see and does not care about.
@anarchyhasnogods Poor choices by the People will likely result in a poor administration which will govern them. Who is at fault?
If we all vote to make all stoplights only red in color (no green or yellow), then who is to blame for the ensuing mess? The stoplight?
@anarchyasnogods
The rich also own Steemit and you are still here. not much difference
The rich own everything....... "you are still here" if the rich literally control everything why does me being in one rich controlled environment vs another a huge thing?
@mrosenquist
Nobody owns the goverment. The goverment is made of people. Me and you. The goverment is an abstract contract of some people. You are the dividend of that contract and you can no capitalisation to win over them.
And yet I vote them into office. I have a voice to determine the contents of that equation. Therefore I can impact what is known as 'government'.
Well said, this struck a cord:
Instead, be grateful for what the government lets you have and invest your time, money, and sacred honor into creating and supporting systems that may one day let you truly own property for the first time.
Your time is the most limited resource there is and how you spend that time is what matters.
I, too felt that this was the most significant passage.
That's you, people. Every user of steemit does this. Some consciously, some not, but indeed.
@dantheman someone once asked me if I wanted to be a businessgeek or a philosopher.....
I told them that it wouldn't be acceptable to be one or the other....
You give me hope!
Great post, as always. Based on this line of thinking, I wonder, is the blockchain (any blockchain) the first "thing" not owned by the government? It doesn't exist within their physical jurisdiction (some functional copies of it might even be in space). Though it relies heavily on the Internet, if the Internet were shut down in a specific region it could go on living via ham radio, mesh networks, or private wide area networks. As blockchains thrive, they create an ecosystem to provide any and all services currently controlled in some way or another by government. For the first time, we might have realistic competition for government services.
Unfortunately, the blockchain isn't a "thing" in the physical sense. Though we may be members of a community online, we're still bags of meat in 3D space, needing to care for our needs within the physical jurisdiction of a government.
You mentioned previously plans to build a more detailed reputation system that would connect to an individual, not just to their posts. Care to elaborate on that further? Is it something you're working on related to Steemit or separately? Do you see it (whatever "it" might be) becoming functional within a year? 2? 5?
I agree with you, reputation is key. It's one of the reasons I don't use a pseudonym here. I'm Luke Stokes, so I'm @lukestokes. Hopefully someday the distinction between my name "in the real world" and the name I build online will not only be small, but the accuracy of the one will mirror the other as far as describing who I actually am and how I relate to the emergent properties that arise from my fellow humans around the world becoming us.
@lukestokes
The goverment is in a sense a blockchain contract with specific parametres. You can either participate or leave. (unless you are in the perpetual hard fork-North Korea)
I've never been a fan of the "if you don't like it, you can leave" argument because it implies there's some other place someone can live that isn't controlled by a Mafia-style coercive entity.
Some things are morally wrong and should be prevented by civilized, empathetic humans. We don't say things like "if you don't like child/spouse abuse, you can leave" or "if your don't like slavery, you can leave" because we recognize these actions as immoral and unjustified. Even then, these outrageous claims are more logical because they imply there is a place on earth the victim can go to escape the abuse. This is not the case with government. Accepting their monopoly on the initiation of force and saying it's up to the victim to find a country which won't be as bad, to me, is similar to justifying what is inherently evil. If slavery is taking 100% of my income, at what percentages is it no longer slavery? Saying government owns everything may make us feel better, but I don't see how it gets around the realities of theft/extortion.
But I guess many don't see government as evil. They see it as a force used for good and evil. Maybe they are right, but I personally can't get around democide. Any organization that is responsible for 100% of war doesn't get a pass.
But there is! There are tons of places that the "smart contract" of the goverment doesn't apply.
Liberland, most of Australia, most of Mongolia, many places in Latin America and Russia, There are tons of places where the goverment doesn't really give a fuck if you go there.
Nothing is "morally wrong". Morality is subjective because morality is defined by the group, not some higher entity. morality is a construct of the group, the masses. They decide what is moral and what is not. It is something people agree upon. This is why every single part of the earth has different morality. this is why every single person has a different morality.
Saying "the goverment" is a massively erroneous generalisation since there are many goverments and many places without a goverment.
There is nothing "inherently evil". Some people agreed that things should be "X" and you were born in that place. That contract is written on those parametres. if you don't like it then you can live. really. you can. nobody is holding you slave or abuses you. that's just sensationalisms.
// If slavery is taking 100% of my income, at what percentages is it no longer slavery?//
You don't need to repeat to me libertarian memes. You are not making any more points by doing it. Again. it is slavery if you HAVE to pay it and they won't let you go. If you can leave then it is not slavery. You are paying a "fee" for being there.
No I don't see goverment as evil because the goverment is a generic concept much like religion. Science is not evil. Religion is not evil. Schooling is not evil, parenting is not evil. these are just concepts. they can be evil or good depending on who is judging them and from what specific scope.
In support of this claim you list Liberland (which I recognize as having the potential of being possibly one of the only places, along with the Sea Steading Institute, but it's still just a possibility), Mongolia (not a place many humans want to live), most of Australia (also basically uninhabitable, unless you happen to be an Aborigine and care little about modern quality of life), Russia (might as well also list the North and South poles), and Latin America. Latin America comes close to a rational argument for me, and I have been looking into options like Belize, Chile, Panama, Costa Rica, and the like. Unfortunately, there's still government backed by violence or there's more obvious Mafia-stye enforcement (bribe this group or that group, etc) which I may actually prefer because at least there's no pretense. One could at least argue there's slightly less monopoly use of force going on. I'm looking into it from a "lesser of many evils" perspective.
I've discussed morality before and don't think it's as subjective as you see it. Many disagree with me, but I think it's based on where humanity as a whole sits on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. If morality was subjective, we could create arguments to justify things like rape, murder, and theft. Given the modern realities of our species and where we are on the evolutionary scale of consciousness, I don't think those arguments could be valid. Some things (at this stage in history) are clearly wrong and can not be justified (IMO).
I wish we could use more accurate language because there is no actual contract. No consenting adult agreed to "it" simply by location of birth and where they grew up. I can't think of any valid, enforceable contract that doesn't involve conscious choice by consenting adults. Even the "by signing up, you agree to our terms of service" have some problems in court (and I don't mean "court" in just the legal sense). To me, "the social contract" is a story we tell ourselves to feel better about our current immoral situation.
Try not paying. Try leaving without paying. Try leaving without paying an exit fee. Try arriving somewhere other than Siberia and also not paying. From my perspective, you're telling yourself a story (as we all are), but your story doesn't seem consistent with reality from my perspective. If I'm paying a fee and that fee is not voluntary and if I don't pay the fee, violent force is used against me, that's called extortion. We can call it other things, if we like, but that's what the word means.
I see government as evil because I define it as a monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographic region (rights I believe no one has, so no one can delegate them). If we had social structures which didn't have that specific characteristic and met the needs we have in society, I'd be all about it, and I wouldn't describe it as "government" as I do the State. It would be similar to so many other voluntary organizations we have that do have real contracts like home owner's associations, bowling leagues, boy scouts, etc, etc.
And yes, this is certainly true:
We have the arguments we can make and support with evidence. I appreciate being able to voice my views and hear criticisms of them.
You have to buy your freedom from the U.S.A. You can't just leave and be free of them. They still claim ownership of you.
@kyriacos - Regarding your idea that it is easy to leave the country and rid oneself of the leech that is the US government:
According to the IRS: "Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside."
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/u-s-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad
According to the US government, you must request permission to renounce citizenship and it can be denied:
"A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html
You also have to pay extortion money in order to "legally" separate yourself. This article explains quite a bit: http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/227982/Income+Tax/Renouncing+Your+US+Citizenship+Is+Divorcing+Uncle+Sam+Right+For+You
Lastly, without paying for a passport (paying for the right to move my physical body to another physical location), it is not easy to leave or enter another country. In fact, I know people who were recently denied entry into Canada for a visit due to petty, old "criminal" charges for which fines and probation were paid and served years prior to attempting to cross the imaginary line between the US and Canada. Again, this was just for a visit, not even a request for citizenship, which is a whole other process.
Bullshit. one good friend of mine just moved to Kuwait and dropped his green card.
Where do you people hear these things? Research the laws of your own country guys. stop listening to bullshiters.
If you want to live on an island alone with no community or society and not benefit from hydro, health programs, transit, etc...maybe you can say that you won't pay taxes but for the rest of us living with others in society it is a necessity not an option since we benefit from what the government provides.
Very well written. I can agree. I love this: "sparing yourself unnecessary mental suffering caused by operating under the belief that you can own anything." .. powerful thought..
I believe there is a bit more to the story. While systems like this may not be used widely (in the mean time), don't let the bully take your lunch!! Even after you have a system to use can it be used? Civil disobedience is historically very effective in inspiring change. One might believe that the taxation is theft could inspire the civil disobedience that will be important that will be key in allowing these systems to take hold.
I never recommend that anyone (including myself) go at this alone. It takes a village. And a lot of cool MEMEs..
@dantheman
In a sense "a goverment" is nothing more than the agreement of the owners of something at some point in time. We emerged as citizens after that given agreement based on the decisions of previous legislators. We are property of the goverment by default.
Whether the parametres of a specific governance are based on violence or free-association is irrelevant.
I would extend this not just to your property but your own body too. That is why you can't even use or put substances into your body without the government's permission - a consequence of our insane drugs laws which result in increasing harm instead of reducing it.
Also I have noticed that your numbered list was not showing properly:
The numbers are cut in half on the left margin - I have seen a few posts like this recently. I'm not sure why it is happening because I seem to remember them working properly before.
I agree with everything here except your negative approach to anti-establishment protesters.
Some anarchists see that the government controls what can't be own. Some people believe in creating decentralized control through community solutions instead.
It's as you keep saying @dan, malevolence & resistance is unproductive and therefore we must create an infrastructure that is more productive, immutable, and fair.
Also, I think taxation could be fair. If we're sharing things then we should be paying our fair share. However, it would be more fair if tax payers controlled their own tax pools, then the tax payer could sponsor projects in their communities. This would create mass growth and development within communities, as part of a transparent & immutable blockchain.
Good food for thought on the subject of blockchain, taxes, and Government.
Thanks for the read @dantheman
Peace
I would say that God owns everything. He created everything, he owns it. All we do is is take what is his and change it. Often when we change things it ends up not really being an improvement. GMOs for instance.
@gamgam
The people who invented the idea of God own your mind.
think about that for a sec.
If God wants my shirt, he's welcome to prove that he is the rightful owner. Until he provides such evidence, I'm keeping it.
@demotruk, @kyriacos, If you have the time and an inquisitive mind I suggest you read Evidence That Demands a Verdict
"Christianity is either EVERYTHING for mankind, or NOTHING. It is either the highest certainty or the greatest delusion...But if Christianity be EVERYTHING for mankind, it is important for every man to be able to give a good reason for the hope that is in him in regard to the eternal verities of the Christian faith. To accept these verities in an unthinking way, or to receive them simply on authority, is not enough for an intelligent and stable faith".
I actually just won a battle with the county government over the "Tangible Personal Property" tax. I don't even own any TPP, but the extortionists claimed that I never sent them the completed form (which stated that I had $0 of TPP), so they tried to charge me almost $700 in penalties and interest. They sent me notices and repeatedly called me for almost a year. I stuck to e-mails explaining that I had sent the form, that I had no TPP, and that the assessment was an error. They even tried sending me a letter that needed to be signed for at the Post Office. I ignored it.
They finally responded to me via e-mail telling me that they were directed by the presiding county tax collector to file my assessment under errors and insolvencies, and that any further correspondence on the matter should be disregarded - and to let them know if I receive anything further so that they can correct it.
It may have been a small victory in the greater war against government coercion, but I'll take it. Don't give in to their demands, especially when you know they screwed up. Don't be intimidated. Make them prove their case. When they can't, they'll usually give in eventually.
How do they own everything, when did they buy it and what with. Governments take what they want when they want it.
You don't need to buy anything to own it you just need to control it. The government obviously controls all of it lmao
They should have to buy it like the rest of us. greedy bunch of overpaid lay abouts lol
The best payment system is getting paid per the amount of resources you produce, but that's leftism who would want that?
Exactly . Who?
Who what exactly lmao this could be going multiple ways
We're heading that way lol :)
Well I'm just gonna assume it is the way i'm hoping its going
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Knowing me it will go completely off track lol
Becareful of that uprising you may get taxed for having more than you declared lol
Owning something and controlling something are 100% opposites.
uhhhh not really?
Yes split title is exactly what it is. Legal title is controlling ownership is equitable.
I should add, I'm not saying they're not controlling shit, you're 100% right there, I'm saying they're not doing it through "ownership".
Legalese is a bitch lol.
legality is a function of the state....................
Yeah it is 100% a state creation that you as contracting with the state are now under if you contract with them.
who is "they" @karen54
the problem when analysing "the goverment" is the abstract notion you give to it. You are part of the goverment. Your parents are. "Goverment" is in a sense a smart contract that binds every single offspring it produces (inanimate or alive) to serve it.
"They" meaning the greedy bunch that run our county and bleed it dry. The ones who think the poor and disabled dont matter. I'm not the government I'm the disabled there trying to kill off
Property is theft.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-government
Keep working, stop paying.
I try to tell people this, people can say what they want but otherwise they'd live in a hole eating dirt.
Not convinced. Taxation is not only theft, it's extortion, the most heinous kind of theft. A great crime against humanity that cannot be argued away.
The ultra wealthy just move money around while the poor do all the work and gain nothing except enough to live until the next day.
"It is our denial of the reality that societal consensus is that government owns everything that causes us to suffer."
That is really mind blowing when you think about it... they really do own everything. The sooner we realize that the better off we will be...
Right societal consensus. Just like it was a consensus that the King owned your head and the land you were standing on. Consensus can change.
If someone pays high taxes, in general he will have high incomes. I would like to pay a lot of taxes for the wealth of the social community ;-)
Trump is literally as we speak, hiding over 9 years of taxes because he hasn't paid any...
I struggle too with paying taxes.
I wonder if there if there is some sort of financial fetish where paying taxes would be perceived as pleasure. That would really be a nice one!
very well said. wicked post @dantheman
Screw the consensus. Why on earth should I conform to the opinion of the masses?
@stevesmith
Unless you have moved to Liberland or some off the grid place in Mongolia or Australia you are conforming either you like it or not
No, it's like me saying "I disagree that the government doesn't own all the oxygen".
I really don't care that nobody cares about my principles. They are my principles.
But I do understand that to some. Principles don't count for much.
"logical fallacy false comparison" How is that a false comparison? You said that I am conforming by staying. I'm saying that I have no choice but to stay. Just as the prisoner has no choice but to remain locked up.
//I'm saying that I have no choice but to stay. Just as the prisoner has no choice but to remain locked up.//
you can leave. please. no need for drama. you are not in North Korea. You are just whining so that other people can conform to your needs "muh freedoms, muh rights.. etc"
Oh, thanks. I guess you know the circumstances of my life better than I do.
Arrogant and condescending much?
I suppose that the slave conforms bodily by eating the meals provided or by laboring under the whip. But to accept that the state of affairs that he finds himself in is right because the consensus of the rest of the slaves is that it's good is the kind of conforming I am speaking about. Just because the majority of people feel that the government owns everything or even that it has a right to exist. Or even the fact that I was born here and am trapped in my circumstances. Doesn't mean that I have to, or even should agree or accept the morality of the situation.
When I pick a mango from the tree that I purchased, planted and nurtured for years. I know that is my mango. The government has the power to steal it from me. Just as it has the power to steal my freedom. But that doesn't mean that makes it their mango. No matter how many others feel like it does.
Screw the consensus.
irrelevant to my point.
You are conforming by staying there. really. is THAT simple. no need for sophisms. daily life goes on and you conform day in day out.
You will pay taxes for the mango either you like it or not.
No, it's not at all THAT simple. (Whats the deal with the caps?)
Does the prisoner conform to the purposes of the jailer because he is locked in a cage?
What do you mean when you use the word conform?
Which of these definitions most accurately reflect how you are using the word?
Simple Definition of conform
: to be similar to or the same as something : to obey or agree with something : to do what other people do : to behave in a way that is accepted by most peoplehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conform
When I use the word, I'm thinking more along the lines of the second one. To agree or accept. I don't accept the idea that the government owns everything. Even if they have the power to steal everything.
//Does the prisoner conform to the purposes of the jailer because he is locked in a cage?//
logical fallacy false comparison
//What do you mean when you use the word conform?//
Follow everything that goes around you in a society where a goverment exists.
all 3. more or less you use the internet, watch trendy tv shows like mr. robot, follow sensationalists (topic doesn't matter), you more or less conform to most of society's standards. You have a 8
9-5 job, pay taxes, yada yada.
// I don't accept the idea that the government owns everything. //
Nobody cares if you do. They still own it. Its like you saying "i disagree with oxygen".
Maybe Americans are more inclined to perceive ownership in those ways. As language and culture influences,defines our reality. Here in Canada it's called 'Crown Land' and the 'Court of Queens Bench', as there was no 'War of Supposed Independence'. We're always reminded who really runs/owns things here up North.
Perception, they say can also change realities. In the traditional culture of India, detachment from worldly stuff was emphasized on as to make perception redundant, so then reality is basically the truth, whatever it may be or mean.
I'll be damned if I had any clues as to how to apply such lofty principles to mundane worldly problems you describe. But changing societal consensus will be a nightmare when you have to navigate a wall, built by the conditioning that has been going on for decades. But a wall which can be brought down nevertheless.
Great read!
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Advanced Steem Metrics Report for 4th October 2016 by @ontofractal
La Percepción lo cambia Todo - ¿Son los Impuestos realmente un hurto? by @traducciones
Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.
Built by @ontofractal
This is the key sentence. I also think that Steemit success depends on "change at once", or maybe "use at once" is enough in some cases.
Great post Dan! It's all moving :)
https://steemit.com/taxes/@elewarne/not-paying-taxes
Maybe some of them do. But I think that many of them suffer from a realisation that they don't own something they should.
Wow. Somehow I missed that you posted this until now. It is very well written and had some really good ideas. I also appreciate you starting it off explaining the perspective of EGO and how it applies. That was to the point and a well written part of this document. For me though that was the most beneficial part. The rest of the ideas I was already in similar in mind with where you seem to be. The ego section though truly was beneficial to me. I've had people say "read Eckhardt Tolle" when talking about Ego and sorry to say I find his works to be fluffy and spend a lot of time getting to the point. You cut through all the fluff and went straight to the point. That is what I prefer. So thank you for that.
Wow, I had no idea you were so passionate about this! Thanks for these amazing words! Check out my design project. https://steemit.com/steemit/@sustainarchist/anarchy-steemit-wall-and-a-decentralized-solar-powered-planet
Hi : ) I would like to participate in Operation Translation by translating this post into Chinese. Would that be okay with you? I would follow @papa-pepper's guidelines!