Then shoot me... If I'm stealing your money by threat of force then shoot me...

[EMNofSeattle]

Oceanreaf pays those deputies, as do many other communities, they also have their own Police/Security, that do a better job than Key West, Marathon with their own police departments. Whether they are gated or not does not change that they are communities. Not to forget the private universities that own substantial property and provide residents with those essential services.

Doesn't change the fact that they have to have deputies because their own hired muscle can't do everything

Here in NC it is legal for private communities to have their own police that the administer and pay for. As long as the police meet the minimum requirements. Communities do not have to have a specific size to be communities privately owned. They only have to have people, a form of administration, and provide essential services. Carolina Trace even provides it's own water service, just like utilities in a incorporated town. They also have a form of government as many do here in NC. And NC is just one state, Florida and NC are not the only states with privately owned successful communities.

in Washington it is illegal for private entities to have their own guards sworn as police officers....

my water is from a utility district that's a municipal corporation, so what, if your water works it works, does Carolina trace have superior drinking water? how do you quantify if that's being done "better"? an HOA is not a "form of government" it's a private corporation you agree to join by buying property in land managed by said corporation. I never doubted that there's private communities that are better to live in then some public communities. that's not the point. the point is, you're saying that all else is equal and the private communities do better, all else is not equal, private communities do better do the fact they are able to do what government cannot legally do.

Hey how is the POS town of Detroit doing lately?

Hey how is the non-POS town of Bellevue Washington doing lately? what does this have to do with anything?

for a true comparison you'd have to compare Carolina Trace or Oceanreef to say... the Montlake neighborhood of Seattle. compare areas with similiar levels of affluence and civic involvement. you can pick any decent place in the country and say "look they're doing better then Detroit"

no Sh*t! really?...

 

[WalkingWolf]

Doesn't change the fact that it upsets you. Many private business uses deputies, or police officers, they still pay their salaries, and are providing them. IOW the private enterprise is paying for it. They are giving them full services, including police, they also have a post office with federal postal employees. They do not pay their salaries, but I do believe they supply the property to the post office. They have doctors offices, emergency care, and paramedics. Dentists anything you can find in an incorporated town and much more than some incorporated towns. YOU are aware that the incorporated town of Marathon does not have a police dept, they hire Monroe county deputies, just the same as Oceanreef. In fact MOST of the communities in the Keys hire and have police by the Monroe County Sheriffs Dept.

BTW When I was once trying to feed my children worked for several towns besides my police job, as a police officer. Here is the kicker, the service was through the Lincoln Detective agency, a private owned police dept providing police services to incorporated towns. The opposite of what you whimpering about.

There are many many many incorporated cesspools like Detroit. Not so many private communities that come anywhere close.

 

[Primus]

Doesn't change the fact that it upsets you. Many private business uses deputies, or police officers, they still pay their salaries, and are providing them. IOW the private enterprise is paying for it. They are giving them full services, including police, they also have a post office with federal postal employees. They do not pay their salaries, but I do believe they supply the property to the post office. They have doctors offices, emergency care, and paramedics. Dentists anything you can find in an incorporated town and much more than some incorporated towns. YOU are aware that the incorporated town of Marathon does not have a police dept, they hire Monroe county deputies, just the same as Oceanreef. In fact MOST of the communities in the Keys hire and are police by the Monroe County Sheriffs Dept.

Bovine Scatology :lol:

 

[Freedom1Man]

SNIP
I wonder if he knows we did not have a income tax until 1913.

Nope, 1861

 

[notalawyer]

There you go she had substantial holdings in the town, she could not own gov or private property, but she owned the town. Communities DOES equal towns, cities, counties, what the He!! do you think a village or group of people living collectively IS?

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

She owned some property in/near the town. BFD. She did not own the town. The Mayor did not work for her, The Police department did not work for her, none of the public employees worked for her. That would define 'owning' a town.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I've attempted to respond in bold. Not to emphasize or scream, but only to make it easier to read.

Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner
I am against taxes being taken by force and not paid voluntarily. The founders were not necessarily as I covered before not just against taxation without representation (which we don't get) they were against taxing without consent, they were for government of consent.

We beat the force/voluntary thing to death we will not see eye to eye, so no point in wasting space.

You cant just ignore the fundamental part of the argument. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it true.

The ironic thing is if you were arguing for minarchy and our government was minarchist, anarchy would not be gaining the popularity it is now. It is the statist who are leading to their own downfall.

I'm not arguing for anything. You keep saying MY represenation or theories. I asked a question for clarification of YOUR stance. This is YOUR thread on how how YOU feel. My only "theory" has been without ANY taxes then the entire country would collapse. No more no less. I never said how much or who should get it or how it should be spent.

You are not just asking questions your arguments are very clear in this thread and others on your viewpoints. And the main point of this thread is still being ignored by you. If it isn't force go take what you feel you need yourself.

I can live with a gas tax as a use tax, but even that is too high and mismanaged, my state will tax itself on projects funded by the gas tax up to 50% making the cost of these 1/3 more to commit fraud on it's citizens so they can take more taxes into the general fund that were not approved.

The other problem with your theory of representation, is there is no protection for the minority because it means either the stronger party (not necessarily the majority party) or the majority party wins and that the rest must capitulate to their demands. These are things the constitution were to restrict and why as brought out by WW, taxes were to be by other means than directly upon the people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the same system is in place that has been since they scrapped the the Articles of Confederation. This system of representation wasn't just developed last week....was designed and signed into law with all the rest of the things you do like.

Your knowledge of history is based on what? It is not the same "system" at all. If the promises made by the federalist were actually kept we more than likely wouldn't be having this conversation.

Your assumption that because government has pirated so many of the items mentions that these wouldn't occur or would be worse is a false premise. Please read Bastiat's What is seen and what is unseen.

Madison vetoed a roads bill as unconstitutional, he thought it was a good idea but would require a constitutional amendment. Proactive policing to a group of people who just fought a war partly due to the unconstitutional proactive policing of the Crown and his peons the redcoats, would be a repugnant notion. But Dale Brown in Detroit is a shining example where you do not need police paid for by force. 70% of U.S.'s firefighters are volunteer now. Why change that it works great. The government should not be funding construction. I will repeat again though the assumption these would not occur because the government funds much of it now is faulty in logic.

I appreciate you giving a good example as a jumping off point. How do you propose it gets funded then? If an interstate highway needs work, who pays for it? Even if you say the States, well it's still a .gov that has to put out the money. How else do you propose the construciton company gets paid? The .gov is merely the representing body of all (majority) of the people who will use it. Hence, States taxes go to state road projects. I wouldn't expect a guy in Texas to pay for my street. But I don't see a problem with other residents of the city paying for the street with me. Also, Volunteer Fire Fighters still get paid my friend....
Private roads are built all the time, it doesn't matter how I propose they get funded if roads are needed they will built. This also ignores my answer to these on another post. Not all volunteer firefighters get paid.....that doesn't make it "volunteer". And many non public firefighters are paid from insurance and private money.

If a government was to exist under natural law, and the theory of justice one may make an argument it exists to 1)protect rights 2) provide defense 3) provide a system for arbitrating disputes (civil and criminal) 4) and my least favorite provide a form of policing to protect our rights. Yet this is rarely the argument put forth by those who worship at the alter of the state. In jingoistic nationalism they put the state above people and create for themselves and force it upon others a top down unnatural system which then provides a rationalization for them to treat others as heretics for not sharing in their city on the hill vision of the state.

noted you didn't even address this paragraph.

 

[eye95]

I believe Nixon at one time put a 10% import tax on China during his term. Just think how much revenue that would bring today.

Eye my mistake, I thought everybody knew that the country was run on revenue from tariffs up until the 19th century. I would have primus would know this also.

I believe it was the Tariff Act of 1789. I wonder if he knows we did not have a income tax until 1913.

Did you mean to address your second paragraph to someone other than me?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Nope, 1861

The Tyrant Lincoln.

 

[eye95]

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

She owned some property in/near the town. BFD. She did not own the town. The Mayor did not work for her, The Police department did not work for her, none of the public employees worked for her. That would define 'owning' a town.

We all see that he was wrong. He does not need to say so for that to happen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

The Tyrant Lincoln.

The current version of the income tax was made constitutional by the 1913 amendment. We should repeal the 16A. It has allowed even more gross oversteps by the feds than an abused Commerce Clause, including the abomination known as obamacare.

All cases against income taxes that made it to the SC resulted in the income taxes being struck down as violating the direct tax ban. Some income taxes died of their own accord before being challenged in the SC.

Until 1913, the feds could attempt an income tax, but it would ultimately fail. After 1913...well...you see what we got now.

May I suggest folks read fairtax.org ? Repeal the 16A.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The current version of the income tax was made constitutional by the 1913 amendment. We should repeal the 16A. It has allowed even more gross oversteps by the feds than an abused Commerce Clause, including the abomination known as obamacare.

All cases against income taxes that made it to the SC resulted in the income taxes being struck down as violating the direct tax ban. Some income taxes died of their own accord before being challenged in the SC.

Until 1913, the feds could attempt an income tax, but it would ultimately fail. After 1913...well...you see what we got now.

May I suggest folks read fairtax.org ? Repeal the 16A.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

True and good points. Lincolns just did it illegally without constitutional authority.

Those SCOTUS cases have yet to be overturned, and some have defined "income" as corporate profit, so many may argue the current tax on wages is still unconstitutional.

Fairtax would be better than what we have now, but it still is run around tax on income. I think we need to starve the beast funding. If we were to get rid of income tax and not replace it with something else the budget would shrink to Clinton's budget which would still be bloated and too much.

 

[eye95]

True and good points. Lincolns just did it illegally without constitutional authority.

Those SCOTUS cases have yet to be overturned, and some have defined "income" as corporate profit, so many may argue the current tax on wages is still unconstitutional.

Fairtax would be better than what we have now, but it still is run around tax on income. I think we need to starve the beast funding. If we were to get rid of income tax and not replace it with something else the budget would shrink to Clinton's budget which would still be bloated and too much.

It is a tax on spending on NEW items above a defined poverty level. Therefore, it is an entirely voluntary tax. Buy used, spend only what you need to survive, and you pay zero tax. Kick your lifestyle up a notch, and pay the tax.

Best of all, while the income tax is essentially levied on the productivity of Americans*, giving foreign producers an edge, all productivity (that is consumed) will be taxed equally, regardless of source, unless the idiots on the other end still tax productivity, then the American products will have the edge!

*for those who might have trouble understanding this: The income tax on wages is levied against folks producing goods in the United States. Folks producing goods in China (for example) do not pay this tax. Therefore this portion of the tax is built into the price of American-made goods, but not foreign made goods.

Furthermore, I would encourage folks not to take the word of a poster on what taxes you have to pay and what taxes you can get away with not paying. Such legal advice is cheap for giver and dear for the recipient. Once may think the laws mean one thing, but if the courts say that they mean another, I recommend going with what the courts say, unless you are willing to be convicted of a crime to make your point. As things stand now, I am not. I favor fixing the problem by repealing the 16A and passing the Fair Tax.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

 

[Freedom1Man]

The current version of the income tax was made constitutional by the 1913 amendment. We should repeal the 16A. It has allowed even more gross oversteps by the feds than an abused Commerce Clause, including the abomination known as obamacare.

SNIP

You should start by reading the 16A and the laws written in accordance with it. I have already posted the 16A and the USSC ruling stating that the 16A changed NOTHING!.

 

[Freedom1Man]

SNIP
Those SCOTUS cases have yet to be overturned, and some have defined "income" as corporate profit, so many may argue the current tax on wages is still unconstitutional.

SNIP.

1939 TITLE 26 USC section 22.

==

As for the tax on wages, it's 100% voluntary under the law. The wage taxes are all found under subtitle C of the IRC while the income tax is only under subtitle A.

 

[Freedom1Man]

It is a tax on spending on NEW items above a defined poverty level. Therefore, it is an entirely voluntary tax. Buy used, spend only what you need to survive, and you pay zero tax. Kick your lifestyle up a notch, and pay the tax.

Best of all, while the income tax is essentially levied on the productivity of Americans, giving foreign producers an edge, all productivity (that is consumed) will be taxed equally, regardless of source, unless the idiots on the other end still tax productivity, then the American products will have the edge!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

The federal income tax is levied on non-resident aliens, foreign corporations, and foreign tax exempt corporations doing business in our country.

Please read the law rather than making absurd statements.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It is a tax on spending on NEW items above a defined poverty level. Therefore, it is an entirely voluntary tax. Buy used, spend only what you need to survive, and you pay zero tax. Kick your lifestyle up a notch, and pay the tax.

Best of all, while the income tax is essentially levied on the productivity of Americans*, giving foreign producers an edge, all productivity (that is consumed) will be taxed equally, regardless of source, unless the idiots on the other end still tax productivity, then the American products will have the edge!

*for those who might have trouble understanding this: The income tax on wages is levied against folks producing goods in the United States. Folks producing goods in China (for example) do not pay this tax. Therefore this portion of the tax is built into the price of American-made goods, but not foreign made goods.

It would still be a run around tax on income, because who are the producers? To avoid paying the tax I would have to not have the most newest and best things that would improve my standard of living?

I admitted it's better than the curren income tax. But lets not swap one tax for another get rid of the tax. They don't need it and if you want a fiscally conservative government the only way to do it is starve the beast.

Furthermore, I would encourage folks not to take the word of a poster on what taxes you have to pay and what taxes you can get away with not paying. Such legal advice is cheap for giver and dear for the recipient. Once may think the laws mean one thing, but if the courts say that they mean another, I recommend going with what the courts say, unless you are willing to be convicted of a crime to make your point. As things stand now, I am not. I favor fixing the problem by repealing the 16A and passing the Fair Tax.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

He has a thread on this if you want please counter there, I would love to read it.

 

[eye95]

Only to the extent that you could argue that any tax anyone pays is a tax on all activities in which they participate. meh.

Taxes are necessary. There are functions of government that are necessary and must be funded.

While I agree that the feds do way too much (most should not be done at all by any level of government, but quite a bit of it is appropriate for local and State governments), they need to tax to fund what they should do. So the questions are only what kind of tax, and at what level, not whether there should be taxes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Only to the extent that you could argue that any tax anyone pays is a tax on all activities in which they participate. meh.

Taxes are necessary. There are functions of government that are necessary and must be funded.

While I agree that the feds do way too much (most should not be done at all by any level of government, but quite a bit of it is appropriate for local and State governments), they need to tax to fund what they should do. So the questions are only what kind of tax, and at what level, not whether there should be taxes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Swapping one tax for another does nothing and will do nothing starve the beast.

Functions of a government being necessary, who decides this?

The functions of a minarchist government even one by the founders could easily be funded without anything more than a 2% tariff.

 

[Primus]

Only to the extent that you could argue that any tax anyone pays is a tax on all activities in which they participate. meh.

Taxes are necessary. There are functions of government that are necessary and must be funded.

While I agree that the feds do way too much (most should not be done at all by any level of government, but quite a bit of it is appropriate for local and State governments), they need to tax to fund what they should do. So the questions are only what kind of tax, and at what level, not whether there should be taxes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

+1 I agree with this view, better said then I've put it.

 

[Primus]

Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner
I am against taxes being taken by force and not paid voluntarily. The founders were not necessarily as I covered before not just against taxation without representation (which we don't get) they were against taxing without consent, they were for government of consent.

We beat the force/voluntary thing to death we will not see eye to eye, so no point in wasting space.

You cant just ignore the fundamental part of the argument. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it true.

The ironic thing is if you were arguing for minarchy and our government was minarchist, anarchy would not be gaining the popularity it is now. It is the statist who are leading to their own downfall.

I'm not arguing for anything. You keep saying MY represenation or theories. I asked a question for clarification of YOUR stance. This is YOUR thread on how how YOU feel. My only "theory" has been without ANY taxes then the entire country would collapse. No more no less. I never said how much or who should get it or how it should be spent.

You are not just asking questions your arguments are very clear in this thread and others on your viewpoints. And the main point of this thread is still being ignored by you. If it isn't force go take what you feel you need yourself.

I can live with a gas tax as a use tax, but even that is too high and mismanaged, my state will tax itself on projects funded by the gas tax up to 50% making the cost of these 1/3 more to commit fraud on it's citizens so they can take more taxes into the general fund that were not approved.

The other problem with your theory of representation, is there is no protection for the minority because it means either the stronger party (not necessarily the majority party) or the majority party wins and that the rest must capitulate to their demands. These are things the constitution were to restrict and why as brought out by WW, taxes were to be by other means than directly upon the people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the same system is in place that has been since they scrapped the the Articles of Confederation. This system of representation wasn't just developed last week....was designed and signed into law with all the rest of the things you do like.

Your knowledge of history is based on what? It is not the same "system" at all. If the promises made by the federalist were actually kept we more than likely wouldn't be having this conversation.

Your assumption that because government has pirated so many of the items mentions that these wouldn't occur or would be worse is a false premise. Please read Bastiat's What is seen and what is unseen.

Madison vetoed a roads bill as unconstitutional, he thought it was a good idea but would require a constitutional amendment. Proactive policing to a group of people who just fought a war partly due to the unconstitutional proactive policing of the Crown and his peons the redcoats, would be a repugnant notion. But Dale Brown in Detroit is a shining example where you do not need police paid for by force. 70% of U.S.'s firefighters are volunteer now. Why change that it works great. The government should not be funding construction. I will repeat again though the assumption these would not occur because the government funds much of it now is faulty in logic.

I appreciate you giving a good example as a jumping off point. How do you propose it gets funded then? If an interstate highway needs work, who pays for it? Even if you say the States, well it's still a .gov that has to put out the money. How else do you propose the construciton company gets paid? The .gov is merely the representing body of all (majority) of the people who will use it. Hence, States taxes go to state road projects. I wouldn't expect a guy in Texas to pay for my street. But I don't see a problem with other residents of the city paying for the street with me. Also, Volunteer Fire Fighters still get paid my friend....
Private roads are built all the time, it doesn't matter how I propose they get funded if roads are needed they will built. This also ignores my answer to these on another post. Not all volunteer firefighters get paid.....that doesn't make it "volunteer". And many non public firefighters are paid from insurance and private money.

If a government was to exist under natural law, and the theory of justice one may make an argument it exists to 1)protect rights 2) provide defense 3) provide a system for arbitrating disputes (civil and criminal) 4) and my least favorite provide a form of policing to protect our rights. Yet this is rarely the argument put forth by those who worship at the alter of the state. In jingoistic nationalism they put the state above people and create for themselves and force it upon others a top down unnatural system which then provides a rationalization for them to treat others as heretics for not sharing in their city on the hill vision of the state.

noted you didn't even address this paragraph.

I was attempting to discern the old post from the new post but it's all in blue. I was able to gather you avoided coming up with a method for roads to be made, you just said private roads get made. You didn't even answer the idea that the roads would be PRIVATE, or answer my premise that if it was private then who drive on it?

I wasn't ignoring your argument about taxes being taken with force. I refuted it in a few words in a very short sentence, you refuted by saying you don't WANT to do that. One more time for the others reading....

No one forces you to live where you live or work at your job. You voluntarily CHOOSE (key word) to work there and live in that town, county, state, country. You could easily live in another town, county, state, or country to determine exactly how many taxes you want to pay or none. Also, you would have to recind your citzenship as someone pointed out.

I know, it seems like a crazy idea and you'll say "if I have to leave then it's not liberty". My friend, that's exactly what liberty is, the ability to say NO right? So say NO to living there and move. Say NO to an income tax and leave the country. No one will stop you at the border. You are FREE to leave. That is my premise that you knowingly CHOOSE to reside in this wonderful country and the state you live in. Yes you were born their against your will, but your an adult and CHOOSE to stay there. You CHOOSE to accept that if you don't pay your taxes you may be "forcefully" incarcerated. Essentially your in a contract with the .gov.

Finally, Iv'e answered the point of your point of the thread. I have no intentions of taking anything from anyone because I willingly pay taxes by living in my state/country. In fact, I pay more in taxes then alot of guys make (per week) and I'm ok with that. I've accepted that to enjoy the many many freedoms I get, I have to pay something into it. Freedom isn't free....