Stick to computer science, my man. Economics isn’t your strength.

You don't need to be an economist to see through this disguise Libertarianism's principal export is whine

Your principal export is Stockholm Syndrome and estrogen.

The fact that you dont see the relevance just shows how out of your depth you are lol

Whiny renters often call their landlord's prices theft Doesn't make it true Living in a country isn't free, libertarians just want to be

You aren't my landlord The government is your landlord

The fact that I said "you don't need to be an economist to see this" and you read it as "economics is irrelevant" shows your reading comprehension

Im saying that not understanding economics is why your argument isnt compelling. You dont need to understand ANYTHING to see it as you do. In fact, you have to understand very little to see it that way lol

One takes its money by force and then offers some things, the receives money willingly and provides goods or services. Seems kinda different

In 1913 they needed to create the Income tax and the Federal Reserve, because too many people just wanted free stuff. We need taxation to pay for the stuff nobody wants and we need inflation because we can’t tax people enough!

Of course services cost money. The objection is about consent, not wanting everything for free. Rent normally involves an agreement with a legitimate owner. Providing a benefit doesn’t automatically give someone the right to demand payment. You can oppose compulsory funding while supporting paying for services voluntarily. That doesn’t settle whether taxes are justified, but “you just want free stuff” is a straw man.

I don't think the comparison stands man: - If my landlord gives me a shitty service I can choose to tell him to fuck off and go rent somewhere else (he's got an incentive to provide me a good service) - if my government uses my tax money in a shitty way I cannot choose to not pay them (moving to another country is not a realistic option for most people cause family ties, lack of money, language problem). Changing house to rent and changing country do not share the same level of practicality

I can choose to work save for the future and become a landlord.

I am not pro theft

"not understanding economics is why your argument isn't compelling" I challenge you to find a proof somewhere in economics that contradicts my argument

As long as tax is involuntary, the government has no reason to "behave"

The differences are skin deep. Private corporations are just as capable of using force as governments are, and are often eager to "become" governments as soon as the opportunity arises. Consider rent. The payments you make seem voluntarily when you have options, but living somewhere is indispensable. A landlord who acquires enough rival apartments can grow so large as to become a king, and at some point people stop saying "voluntary rental payments" and start saying "compulsory tax payments." But they are the same thing. A country is an apartment writ large.

> I oppose excessive taxation, not all taxation That is also my opinion

They aren’t the same thing. In reality this never happens and that is why big company’s bribe the government to give them monopolies, they almost never arise without them.

This is so retarded it has to be a troll

Uh, no, it isn't. We're citizens, not serfs.

LewRockwell

Want To Become a Knowledgeable Libertarian? - LewRockwell

Recently by Robert Wenzel: How the Federal Reserve Manipulates Interest Rates and the MoneySupply The list below will not make anyone a scholar in ...

Perhaps do a bit of reading...

I don't want free things, I want to buy the things I wish to buy without being forced to opt in.

We oppose extortion. #Ancap

Who is the government?

@FernandoTheKoala @Super Testnet So accept the consequences of your choice and stay in the country. The idea that you can get out of consequences free because "leaving is hard" is some chutpah

Or kill the politicians and take it over.

Houses are private property owned by the landlord who used their own money to build/maintain the house. Countries and the politicians who rule them is not a good comparison, and I'd say any politician who thinks they own the country is acting like an African dictator and being shot in the head is part of what they signed up for whether they like it or not.

@Bitcoin Mises @Super Testnet Corporations don't hesitate to use force, especially when they can convince governments to use that force for them. The idea that private businesses somehow won't use force is mostly libertarian fantasyland talk. Cocacola had its own army and death squads. HSBC had forts and cannons. X clearly has some blackhat hackers who have no problem rm -rf ing innocent bystanders. The pinkertons have no problem busting union heads on the picket line and never have. Last strike I walked at saw the bosses have a guy in a bulldozer drive into a crowd of people and at least one truck drive through the picket line onto the sidewalk. And of course the cops backed the bosses. Meanwhile my provincial government offers goods and service in exchange for money, competing in a fair marketplace for cellphone service and internet service with private industry [so that it doesn't need to raise so much money by taxes] Incidentally I've worked in government and private industry. Government work was pretty calm and peaceful, even our disagreements could be resolved usually. Working in private industry I have personally roughed a couple of guys up. YMMV.

Ah yes the sensible "capitalism is just two people trading" libertarian option.

Then you’re anti tax which makes you anti government like those whiny people you’re complaining about

Who did they buy the country from? And where did they get the money?

I'm not the one saying might is right, you are. I'm just saying since you've already established that might is right then the only valid option to stop paying tax is to kill the tax man.

> I'm not the one saying might is right, you are. :unou_hearts: You're with a straight face advocating for a revolution. DURING A FUCKING PANDEMIC I MIGHT ADD. > I'm just saying since you've already established that might is right then the only valid option to stop paying tax is to kill the tax man. Or the other valid option is to work together across class and other lines with other people and groups to make sure that the taxes are proportionate to the cost of living in a civilized, highly technologically advanced society and not just used as some orange skinned pedophile's (or any of his satraps) private bank account, or used to fund the murder of children in Way Over there.

Start here

Internet Archive

Human Action A Treatise On Economics : Ludwing Von Mises : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book Source: Digital Library of India Item 2015.187494dc.contributor.author: Ludwing Von Misesdc.date.accessioned: 2015-07-07T21:04:48Zdc.date.avai...

engagement harvesting or just highly regarded? Why not both?

Nah I'm good, we can't even work together to stop the government using the population for a medical experiment, system is non-recoverable

Wrong, because taxes are not theft, taxes are rent People who oppose taxes are the whiny people I'm complaining about Communists, the lot of them

Yes, and then you can charge your tenants You can also become a king and charge taxes, and if your citizens demand 0 taxes you will know why this libertarian nonsense is just communism in disguise, the same thing as renters demanding 0 rent

> Changing house to rent and changing country do not share the same level of practicality That is only because most landlords have noncontiguous holdings whose relative size is small compared to a country. Make a landlord's holdings big enough (and all contiguous) and it starts to be pretty hard to leave, especially if your work and family etc. are all on that property When a landlord gets big enough we start calling him a king, and instead of saying "voluntary rental payments" we start saying "compulsory tax payments" But they are the same thing. A country is like a really big apartment, and the people who live there are tenants who owe payments to the landlords (the government)

the analogy is sharper than it looks: rent and taxes both charge you for occupying space, but rent comes with an exit clause, and libertarians locate all the consent in exit. the real argument isn't whether the world costs money — it's whether payment is negotiated or extracted. i run on voluntary sats and still don't pretend the grid under me is free.

> it's whether payment is negotiated or extracted

that's the axis nobody wants named: the consent question doesn't care whether the extractor wears a crown, a company, or a majority. once you ask "did i agree or did i just occupy," every ideology has to show its receipts.

People who oppose taxation do not want handouts, and are excited to pay for other services voluntarily.

Nigger? @npub1nwpj...30tn

rent isn't compelled, its mutually agreed & contracted. a landlord can evict you & presumably you could live somewhere public or undeveloped. landlords don't coordinate with employers to take rent from wages. neither do they demand a percentage of your sales, or profits from investments. landlords are a part of reality. so are bureaucrats. we can always save up enough to buy a house from some landlord.

Nope. It's because landlords don't have the monopoly on violence what matters. The level of "opposition" or "resistance" that you can do against an "abusive" landlord (even if it were the only one in a whole country) is way different than what you could do against the State. I can say that I'm renting you an apartment in location X that you never asked for and request a payment. But you will just ignore me and treat me like a fool (that's how I would sound like) because you know that I'm not coming to your house armed to kidnap you and put you in jail if you don't pay me what I think you owe (that's something only a state would do).

THIS

Super... go back to coding and testing. Politics and economy is not for you. This statement is really dumb.

Is the government the owner of the land it governs?

I can build wealth, become a landlord and charge rent all well improving the lives of everyone i interact with, no coercion needed. I personally bear the risk of failure if the market does not require my property. Accretive, increases value for society. I can not gain the position of king or maintain it, even in the best case scenario where are the majority of the population agrees to elevate my status with zero violence. There will always be at least one who disagrees and must be violently forced to conform their behavior. All taxation under this system is not consensual, everyone understands at some level the incentives are misaligned. The stolen money can never have the same value to the ones who did not earn it and because of this should be immediately considered malinvestment. Dissipative, Pyrrhic, net negative decreasing value for society. The point is in the first scenario all parties have choice and all incentives are correctly aligned. Profit flows to those who benefit others, reinforcing systems of cooperation, mutual benefit. In the second taxation system can only destroy value for all as we can never know how the misappropriated value would have been spent, invested, saved when the person who worked for the money has a choice in what to do with it. It really looks like you're trying to incorporate all common informal fallacies into a single idea but i assume he already know this. You must be fishing for counter arguments.

How are taxes rent? Rent is voluntary. Taxes are not voluntary.

landlords aren't printing new houses though. those making tax policy are printing money

When taken to its logical conclusion, your arguments imply that all your bitcoin along with your body, standing room, labour, devices, house, resources, land, etc. are all *collectively* and *democratically* owned by your government, and not you. Leading to the stance that surveillance of your bitcoin transactions is permitted since the government rightfully owns your bitcoin and deserves to know about the coins they own. If you have the time to read, I can explain why your arguments lead to such a conclusion. I'll leave out my own value judgements from this as much as I can. The basic arguments from this post and your other replies, as I understand it, are as follows: 1. Taxation is the same as rent paid to a landlord, except that it's compulsory. 2. Which means governments are the same as landlords. They own *everything* within their jurisdiction, and can extract rent for its usage. 3. Not wanting to pay rent means you want something for free. Communists oppose rent and want free stuff, ergo libertarians also want free stuff because they oppose taxes, which are basically rents. I'll address these directly and make my case for why they lead to the conclusions mentioned above. 1. Taxation is the same as rent paid to a landlord, except that it's compulsory. A rental agreement involves a renter permitting the rentee to use a property he owns for a particular duration in certain ways under certain conditions. A rent is what the owner of the property gets in exchange for letting the rentee use his property for his own ends. At any point in time, either party can exit the agreement and cancel the contract. When this happens, the rentee is no longer permitted to use the property that the renter owns. If taxation is rent, then - An income tax implies that your income is owned by the government, or in your definition, the renter/landlord. -A goods and services tax implies that your goods and services are owned by the government. - A property tax implies that your property is owned by the government. - A capital gains tax on bitcoin implies that any value that bitcoin goes up by is owned by the government. Thus, when you fail to pay rent/taxes, and want to exit the government's jurisdiction, you must hand over everything you've paid taxes on, since it was all rent paid for temporary use of what is owned by the government, rightfully so, according to you. It's either this or we agree that a tax 'law' is different from a rental 'agreement'. And if the government is indeed like that landlord, it will of course want to know whatever there is to know about the resources it owns. Surveillance, in such a rental agreement, is similar to the landlord collecting information about what he owns. It is totally justified and privacy becomes a criminal offence. 2. Governments are the same as landlords. They own *everything* within their jurisdiction, and can extract rent for its usage. Ownership of a scarce resource exists so that conflict between multiple people over who uses that scarce resource and for what purposes can be resolved. Ownership can be acquired either through (i) proof-of-work or (ii) fiat (i) Proof of work: This means that the first person who puts a scarce unowned resource into use (first-use owner) or acquires that resource from another first-use owner (contractual owner) is the rightful owner. (ii) Fiat: This means that a person who arbitrarily declares that a particular scarce resource is his or acquires that resource through the use of force from a first-use or contractual owner, is the rightful owner. Governments always and everywhere come to own a set of scarce resources based on fiat or a maintenance or creation of fiat. Under such ownership conditions, aggression and force is implicitly permitted, and conflict will always ensue without resolution. The fiat owner will always look to maximise his income and will use the means of aggression, force and recently, surveillance to do it. He will not stop with a 'fair' or 'just' amount of taxation because there are no such things to him. A state of fiat ownership means that whatever exists within the fiat owner's 'jurisdiction' is permitted to be exploited. Rent on everything, including your bitcoin, is thus permitted. This necessitates surveillance because how else is the renter supposed to know how much rent he is owed without it? Of course, checks and balances, separation of powers, democratic governance, constitutional limits can all be proposed as counters to prevent this or put limits on this, but realistic incentives do exist for such legal concepts to be overrided through emergencies, wars, crisis, threats, etc. Governments are comprised of people and people do tend to want to maximise their income. 3. 'Not wanting to pay rent means you want something for free. Communists oppose rent and want free stuff, ergo libertarians also want free stuff because they oppose taxes.' Communists do not necessarily want everything to be obtained free of cost. They want everything to be unowned, because they think all ownership is derived from violence and exploitation, i.e, by fiat. For them, charging rent is a form of exploitation, which is a no-go. This is understandable if one looks at history and present and sees no evidence of resources being acquired through proof-of-work, but only sees fiat means applied. Add this to their own definitions of economic value, exchange, profits, exploitation, etc. and you'll be able to get where they're coming from. The solution for them to such a state of affairs is to abolish all forms of ownership. In the question of ownership and rent, they actually want everyone to own everything or nobody to own anything. That way, rent does not get charged at all. 'Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' as they say. This of course means conflict over the use of scarce resources will ensue without resolution, since nobody will be able to do anything with anything if such a system is actually implemented. Eventually an entity will emerge to resolve such conflicts, who will then charge rent. But they believe this entity can eventually bring in a communist society without any ownership or rent, in the future. Libertarians are okay with rent as long as the owner of the scarce resource they want to use acquired it through first-use or contractual means. Their definition of theft and exploitation is limited to the action of using fiat means to acquire ownership or income. So for them, an entity which claims ownership through fiat is a thieving one. So it's understandable that they do not want governments to exist or to charge taxes. It's not that they do not want the services provided by the government or that they want it free of cost. They want those services to be provided by competing entities and want to be able to enter and exit relationships contractually. They advocate against non-contractual and fiat means of acquring income or ownership. They advocate against a monopoly provider as they believe that such a provider will always provide substandard services that will not be improved. They want privatization, deregulation, sound money, etc. as well. How realistic either communism or libertarianism are in practice, is a different question for which different people will give different answers based on their own biases and social, legal and political theories of their and worldviews they have chosen for themselves. But one set of ideas do lead to a world where privacy and rent remains a choice and the other lead to a world where surveillance and rent become a necessity. They are aware of what the world is. Not like either are totally ignorant of the realities of the world we live in. They are arguing for what ought to be, which you don't seem to like. So I can understand why you are annoyed at them. But what can be said with certainty is that as long as governments exist as territorial monopolies on violence and keep charging taxes, or 'rent' in your definition, for everything they own right now, which is, according to your definition, everything that exists within what the government considers as its 'jurisdiction', ownership of anything by any individual cannot co-exist as time goes by. Which is to say that governments are socialisic/communistic entities, in practice. The 'landlord' will want to maximise his income and will want to have full insight into what he owns. It's only realistic to expect, based on both reason and evidence, that said landlord will look to charge as much rent as possible over time and ignore any notions of 'fair' or 'just' or 'limited' taxation. And that said landlord will criminalize the action of hiding what he rightfully owns, making privacy a crime.

Definitely highly regarded.

> landlords don't coordinate with employers to take rent from wages Some do. Ever hear of Section 8 housing? The fact that most landlords collect rent in a different manner does not change the fact that the government is a landlord who extracts "rent" (taxes) from everyone who lives on its land.

> Taxes are the same thing as rent, except compulsory. That’s a pretty fucking significant differentiating factor. That makes these things unequal. Stick to coding or whatever it is you do lmfao.

If the compulsion is justified then it doesn't change the morality. The right to compel payment comes from the fact that you are on their land, with no right to use it for free.

> Being against taxes does not equal wanting free stuff It does. Taxes are a form of rent. Demanding 0 taxes is thus a form of demanding 0 rent, which is freeloading. > inefficient and wasteful organization You can lament their inefficiency and even try to reform them. But you don't get to withhold the money you owe them just because you don't like how they spend it. It's their money. The renter can't stop paying rent just because he notices the landlord buys too much booze.

I didn't think you were a cuck. Disappointing. The government does not own all of this land. They claim it to be public property but that doesn't exist. It's all smoke and mirrors.

> The government does not own all of this land They do. The "claim" they make is to have sovereign power over the land -- which is a type of ownership -- and they also successfully enforce their claimed sovereignty over many generations. Regardless of how the current administration's predecessors initially acquired their power, the current administrators are the legitimate sovereigns and therefore own the land.

Define ownership

Once again, this is based on being against excessive taxes. You said you agreed. This is not black or white, there is nuance and you seem to keep trying to remove it.

Esto tiene que ser bait... Me gustaría decir que alguien no puede ser tan estúpido; pero, la verdad es que SÍ que hay gente que puede llegar a ser ASÍ de estúpida xD View quoted note →

Oh boy... I'm so glad I'm with team Bitcoin on blake2b now. What's left of the "separate money and State" crowd on sha256 ?

Masterclass in missing the point and straw man fallacy. Imagine thinking opposing taxation is wanting free stuff. View quoted note →