If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
An opinion would be 'I think extortion should be illegal and taxes legal' (which is an opinion supporting the status quo). Another opinion would be 'I think extortion should be legal and taxes illegal' (which is an opinion supporting political change)
Facts are things like "John took Bob's toy car"
Opinion is saying "John took Bob's toy car, legally"
The participants don't change, the actions do not change, so factually nothing alters. "Legally" is, therefore, an opinion.
Only lawyers are allowed to have legal opinions in relation to things that might go to court. (Unless you are defending yourself of course, then you can have an opinion about your own case)
Legal professionals have to sign up to upholding the court yadda yadda in order to remain in their lucrative profession. This includes the judge/magistrate, who isn't neutral at all, he is on the prosecution's side, and so is any defence legal guy as well. They are all signed up to helping the court over and above helping whoever is accused. Any argument that might cast doubt on the court cannot be used by a legal eagle without him/her losing their job.
So if you had a chance at getting justice that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the court, no lawyer on earth would use it.
Yes I can factually disagree with another man's opinion, the act of disagreeing with an opinion (or agreeing with it for that matter) does not make the facts alter.
"Statute law" is one set of men's values written down, not a statement of reality. I can factually act in accordance with or against those values, but those values are not facts.
If you choose to remain in what everyone else has agreed is a country, then you have responsibilities as well as freedoms. You voluntarily accept the need to pay tax to a government by remaining within that government's jurisdiction.
I have ignored your question about taxatioon and extortion because it is a non-question. If you voluntarily choose to remain under a government's jurisdiction, then you are liable to pay taxation to that government, in the same way that I am liable to pay rent to my landlord. This is not extortion.
as for your nonsense about the law "protecting" the prosecution, the same applies. If you do not like the law in this country then you are free to leave to a country which does not have these laws.
I always find it very bizarre when anarchistic liberals try and argue that the law is wrong, given that the property rights they cherish so much only exist because of the very same legal framework.
Where and when did the "government" acquire this jurisdiction?
How do they maintain it?
The group of people MOST likely to invade my property and take away my stuff is the government. In fact it's guaranteed that they will unless I pay tribute to them or can argue them out of it in some way.
"This country" does not exist......so there isn't much point leaving it. I am free to point out that the basis for the violent control of parts of my life is unsound, which is what I am choosing to do.
I think you have ignored my question because it shows the government for what they are - killers thieves and liars. You really think that people who don't respect your property are the best ones to defend it?
"I have ignored your question about taxatioon and extortion because it is a non-question. If you voluntarily choose to remain under a government's jurisdiction, then you are liable to pay taxation to that government"
And if you live near "Big Vinnie" the local gangster you should pay him protection too, right? Because after all, it is his patch.....
C'mon, play the game -
When and where did "the government" acquire jurisdiction?
How do they maintain it?
How are countries created?
How are they maintained?
What's voluntary about "pay up or else"?
How does a government differ from a large scale "mafia"?
Are these differences to make the amount of resources brought in by "tax" higher or because they are huggable, lovable peaceful types, motivated by only the best intentions for all of us?
OK, let's try another tack with you - if, as you say, taxation is theft, do you also think that profit is theft? Or private property? After all, profit is made by appropriating surplus value from workers. The land is a common treasure, housing a basic need, so why should someone charge me rent for letting me live somewhere?
You are incapable of thinking in abstractions. Look, its something that most human beings can do, in fact we're very good at it, its one thing that marks us out as different from other animals.
Yes, I agree. But given our current economic system, how do you propose to pay for street lights, social services, the NHS, education, roads etc without tax?
Money is a pretty flawed system, due to the Pareto effect and so on.
At the moment, the guy who sets up the framework for others to actually create the goods gets most of the profits. Which is a shame, because creating the framework only needs to be done once, and then it's all maintenance from that point. I know I have done it. The risks are all at the start, after that it's a piece of piss.
There should be some incentive for people who are good at setting up businesses to keep on doing it. The reason they get left alone, of course, is that in order to take stuff by force, there has to be stuff to take. All taxation comes from business, one way or another.
If companies et al were built more on democratic lines, perhaps the wage inequalities might be less. As it stands most companies are either communist (central commitee, 5 year plans) or fascist in nature (do as I say). I worked at a firm once that had a teamworking "frame" and it was a very very good place to work for. It also made money and won awards, so it can be done.
Private property is a nice little game for us all to play. There is nothing stopping me using your stuff unless I am physically prevented from doing so. The game is called - "we will pretend you can have a little, so we can pretend to have a lot".
Oh yeah, of course. The problem with taxation isn't what you do with the money. If I rob you to buy medicine for my sick grandma, that was a good thing for granny and a bad thing for you. It was still theft.
If you let me rob anything at all on the basis of who I am, I am going to -
Take too much.
Waste it.
Want more and more.
Going to use those resources to convince you that giving me stuff is a good thing. I might even "educate" you and your children.
Give you little bits of it back so you don't get too upset at your situation.
And so on. In fact I am going to see to it that you are as productive as possible, using carrots and sticks because then I get even more from an ever expanding pie. I will protect you and look after you, because you are my meal ticket but the last thing I am ever going to do is leave you alone.
Sorry, I kind of have this belief that people make good choices baed on shit information. Correct the information, it follows, and new decisions are formed.
Btw, in brief therapy, do you ever get overweight people to add a few pounds?
.
The banking system, the justice system, the political system all exist to take things from you and give to those who control those systems. Anything like voting or the courts, or giving you the choice in which of several almost identical cars to buy is merely public relations.
Government always fails in what it sets out to achieve, and as they have vast (stolen) resources and can pay for the very best minds and so forth, this must be on purpose.
Mainly, because if they ever actually solved the problems they say that they want to, they would have no rationale for continued existence. And, as I have stated before, if no one voted, would they disband and go away?
The business of government is keeping the government in business.
people always crave power and control, those who were given it by the public will strive to keep ahold of it
i think that last postyou made klintock was a postof yours that actually made sense, butyou just got the wrong end of the shit covered stick again
wherever a large group of people live together ...especialy millions large ...there will always have to be an incomplete and imperfect system of control and regulation ...
meaningmuch slight of hand and pulling rabbits from hats to please the crowd.
same as it ever was ...
Asking the bank what is promised on the "promise to pay", asking a magistrate who he represents, asking for the facts that opinions are based on for a council tax debt - all these things are the equivalent of saying "you have an ace up your sleeve" or "these cards have all got funny marks on them - look!" to a shit magician.
All change the way the show goes. Knowing what you are up against is the best defence you can have. There is the public face - "fair, peaceful, just" and what actually happens - which we know about, theft, corruption yadda yadda.
Without the public relations, the scam couldn't work, so the public relations must be maintained. Ghandi knew this fact. That those who do "bad things for good reasons" or persuade others the same way, will do anything to stop it being known that it's "bad things for bad reasons".
Which brings me back to the banking I started with. While the banks are able to produce money at the stroke of a pen, without the ability to back it up, they gain great power at no responsiblity (thank you, Stan Lee). Every president who has advocated altering the banking laws in the US has been shot. Few people know that even the Federal reserve is privately owned.
The most powerful men and women in "the country" are unknown. How they operate is largely unknown. They have bought men and women's lives with wealth that was never theirs in a complicated confidence scam and almost no one knows.
It's no use debating politics when the real rulers of the place are faceless, probably overseas and able to destroy the economy at will.
so because of all this crap you are still spewing, i can discuss if its right or wrong to park on double yellow lines?
so people that powerful really care about things that small
That's kind of the point though, isn't it. While you are waffling on about double yellows, you aren't challenging the rationale of the system, and have no chance whatsoever of getting anything done beyond small scale crap.
Why do you have double yellow lines anyway?
How does paint get you to behave? and if you park on them for a month but inconvenience no one, how come you have "done something wrong" and broken the law?