Voluntaryism: Taxation = Theft , Govt = Slavery , Voting = Violence
https://www.governmentisslavery.com/ https://www.governmentisslavery.com/governmentisslavery.pdf 06/21/2019 Taxation is Theft [1], therefore Government is Slavery [2], therefore Voting is an Act of Violence [3]. IF you IGNORE the empirical factuality of these observations, fail to recognize them to be true by logic and definition, or fail to reach the correct and logical conclusion that: it is immoral, wrong, supremely detestable, etc., to condone or participate in "government", then... I propose this is because you have been BRAINWASHED, dumbed-down and indoctrinated to inhibit or disable even consideration of these ideas, never-mind educate yourself and engage enough thought process to actually understand them -- conditioned to group-think rather than taught how to actually think for yourself. With the conditioned reflex of a fish in a school, or a denizen of 'The Matrix [4]', you will probably argue in defense of the very system of our enslavement to mass murderers and unspeakable evil: "government". This sentiment of suckers, typifying the rampant COWARDICE infecting society, is based on a fear and loathing so very glorified by our "culture" of statism: that of personal responsibility to acknowledge truth and act morally. Your IGNORE-ance of these obvious facts is an insult to the entire human race, including yourself, and is on my list of things that are worth being angry about. But I don't expect many to understand or agree, due to pervasive stupidity. No offense to anyone... After all, 99%+ of people on this madhouse planet are insane, supremely ignorant cowards who will accuse me of being the crazy/stupid one. Wake up. Grow a set. Educate yourself... [5] TriviumEducation.com [6] Voluntaryist.com [7] WhatOnEarthIsHappening.com [8] CorbettReport.com [9] TragedyAndHope.com [10] LogosMedia.com [11] NotBeingGoverned.com [12] Agorism.info [13] Liberty.me [14] C4SS.org [15] Mises.org [16] TheConsciousResistance.com [17] TheFreeThoughtProject.com [18] LibertarianInstitute.org [19] BraveTheWorld.com [20] TheAnarchistLibrary.org [21] MindBendingTruth.com [22] Murray Rothbard [23] Samuel E. Konkin III [24] Jeremy Locke [25] Frederic Bastiat [26] Tom G. Palmer [27] Bruce E. Levine [28] Jeff Berwick [29] Ron Paul [30] The Pholosopher [31] Anarchy Ball [32] Maxwell Igan [33] Cody Wilson [34] Tom Woods [35] Gary Allen [36] James H. Billington [37] Michael Tsarion [38] G. Edward Griffin [39] John Taylor Gatto [40] Dorothy Sayers [41] Ethan Indigo Smith [42] John Coleman [43] John W. DeCamp [44] Nancy Schaefer [45] Ted Gunderson [46] Michael Ruppert [47] Milton William Cooper [48] Edward Snowden [49] Andreas Antonopolous [50] Timothy C. May [51] Satoshi Nakamoto [52] Alex Jones [53] David Icke [54] Dark Journalist [55] #trutherbot [56] Vinny Eastwood [57] Anonymous [58] Brother Nathanael [59] Jim Fetzer [60] David D. Friedman [61] Edward P. Stringham [62] Bryan Caplan [63] Stephan Kinsella [64] Adam Kokesh "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - [65] Lysander Spooner "The belief in "authority," which includes all belief in "government," is irrational and self- contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in "authority" is the arch-enemy of humanity." - [66] Larken Rose, [67] The Most Dangerous Superstition "Those who believe that "Authority" is necessary and that it must continue, have actually been duped into believing that human SLAVERY is necessary and must continue in order to prevent Chaos. Violence and Slavery CAN NOT prevent Chaos. Violence and Slavery ARE Chaos. The Fear of the possibility of Chaos IS the Fear of True Freedom" - Mark Passio [68] WhatOnEarthIsHappening.com "The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live." - Leo Tolstoy "Through taxation, pacifists are forced at gunpoint to pay for killing machines; vegetarians are forced at gunpoint to subsidize grazing land for cattle; non-smokers are forced at gunpoint to support both the production of tobacco and the research to counter its impact on health." - Dr. Mary Ruwart, [69] Healing Our World "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want, merely because you think it would be good for him." - Robert A. Heinlein "Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." - Herman Goering "A people that elect corrupt politicians are not victims... but accomplices." - George Orwell "Voting has become a farce, if indeed it was ever anything else. By voting, the people decide only which of the oligarchs preselected for them as viable candidates will wield the whip used to flog them and will command the legion of willing accomplices who perpetrate the countless violations of the people's natural rights." - [70] Robert Higgs "Having been convinced that "authority" is real, and that by way of it, some human beings have acquired the moral right to initiate violence and commit acts of aggression against others (by way of so-called "laws"), every Democrat, every Republican, every voter, and everyone else who advocates "government" in any form is a proponent of violence and injustice. Of course, they do not see it that way, because their belief in "authority" has warped and perverted their perception of reality." - [71] Larken Rose "The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority." - [72] Stanley Milgram "Loyal obedience to "authority," while painted by many as a great virtue, is really nothing more than a pathetic attempt to escape the responsibility of being human and reduce oneself to an unthinking, amoral, programmable machine." - [73] Larken Rose "Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hard-headed realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives [abdicate responsibility] to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners." - [74] Edward Abbey "Anarchism: A Philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made laws; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." - [75] Emma Goldman "The understanding of Natural Law is centered upon bringing our own Conscience into alignment with [76] Objective Morality." - Mark Passio "The thought of how far the human race would have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination." - [77] Doug Casey "To say an anarchist society would be devoid of morality ignores the entire reason people are anarchists. The only reason to be an anarchist is the realization that the state itself is an immoral institution. Anarchism is rooted in a belief in morality." - [78] Fred Autonom "Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukranians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a 'Great Leap Forward' that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state's mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." - [79] Robert Higgs "If you endorse a system of violence and coercion that threatens me with force on a daily basis, and I advocate for the abolition of that system, this is not just some difference of opinion where we can simply agree to disagree. You are actively participating in conspiracy to commit theft, assault, kidnapping and murder. There is no other context in which anybody would find this an acceptable pattern of behavior, the fact that billions of people across the globe allow you to be a willing participant in violent crime doesn't mean that you are entitled to the opinion that violent crime is a good thing, you have no right to be that wrong." - Chris Cantwell "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." - [80] Henry David Thoreau "If you personally advocate that I be caged if I don't pay for whatever government things YOU want, please don't pretend to be tolerant, or non-violent, or enlightened, or compassionate. Don't pretend you believe in live and let live, and don't pretend you want peace, freedom, or harmony." - [81] Larken Rose "I wonder how many such men in America would know that Communism, The New Deal, Fascism, Nazism, are merely so-many trade-names for COLLECTIVIST STATISM, like the trade-names for tooth-pastes which are all exactly alike except for the flavouring." - [82] Albert Jay Nock "Democracy is also a form of religion. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses." - [83] H. L. Mencken "There can be no socialism without the state, and as long as there is a state, there is socialism. The state then is the very institution that puts socialism into action; and as socialism rests on aggressive violence directed against innocent victims, aggressive violence is the nature of any state." [84] Hans-Hermann Hoppe "Taxation of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor. Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities." - [85] Robert Nozick "Interestingly, even those who talk about "representative government" refuse to accept any personal responsibility for actions taken by those for whom they voted. If their candidate of choice enacts a harmful "law," or raises "taxes," or wages war, the voters never feel the same guilt or shame they would feel if they themselves had personally done such things, or had hired or instructed someone else to do such things. This fact demonstrates that even the most enthusiastic voters do not actually believe the rhetoric about "representative government," and do not view politicians as their representatives." - [86] Larken Rose "...the American government you see today is exactly what its designers wanted when they designed it, and the excuses given by American "patriots" not to burn it to the ground today are the same weak excuses they gave at every stage of its development since 1787. The Constitution of the United States of America was and is a document of enslavement intended to fool the weak minded while pacifying those who possess the moral fortitude and intelligence to stand up to tyranny." - [87] Sedition, Subversion and Sabotage Field Manual No. 1 [88] fb.com/BadQuakerDotCom "Political parties are disease vectors. They are hybrid cocktails of the milgram experiment and the stockholm syndrome with a strong police state chaser to set the virus in place. The virus is used to render an otherwise healthy ecology of spontaneous order into a shambling and largely inefficient engine for selecting a group of controllers to benefit at the expense of the whole. It is no more complex than that." - [89] zerogov.com What makes sex not rape? Consent. What makes a job not slavery? Consent. What makes taxation not theft? War, Drug War, GMO Subsidies, Surveillance, Police Brutality, Common Core, Roads. "Mutualism is applicable to every human relations. Throughout the whole gamut of existence, from birth to death, mutuality -- voluntary association for reciprocal action -- is everywhere and at every moment waiting to solve every problem of social intercourse, to decide every issue that arises in commerce and industry. In order to practice mutualism, it is necessary to name only two conditions; that the non-invasive individual shall not be coerced, and that no part of the product of any one's labor shall be taken from him without his consent. With those negative generalizations thus postulated, thereby affirming the sovereignty of the individual, therefrom flows naturally the positive and constructive corollary -- reciprocity; which implies individual initiative, free contract, and voluntary association." - Clarence Lee Swartz, [90] The Practicability of Mutualism "Those who advocate either slavery or income taxation should be ashamed of themselves. Genuine freedom entails the abolition, not the reform, of income taxation and the IRS, just as genuine freedom entailed the abolition, not the reform, of slavery." - [91] Jacob G. Hornberger "Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has 100% control of his own property." - [92] Andrew Joseph Galambos "Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy.Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends." - [93] voluntaryist.com "You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and following its decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul." - Mahatma Gandhi "The system cannot be fixed by the system." - Tom Morello "The most dangerous thing you can do is educate people. Because when people become educated, you cannot control them, you cannot frighten them. People who are educated know their own power, and don't surrender it to others." - [94] Jordan Maxwell "Our countries are corporations and the world is a business controlled by a small group of untouchable banking families. The laws that control our society have been meticulously structured over thousands of years to protect the corporations, while giving us the illusion that we are free. We, the people, are blissfully ignorant that we are the slaves and the assets of those who control the business. It is time to wake up and free ourselves. Nobody will do this for us. The universe awaits our action, so that it can respond through the law of attraction, and welcome humanity into the universal community of beings of higher consciousness." - Michael Tellinger, [95] UBUNTU Contributionism "Using these new and old technologies, dissent and original thought are being ripped from us. Traditions of individual sovereignty and freedom are being expunged from our minds and from the history books. And, due to the multitude of anesthetics we have been shot up with, we don't feel a thing. If we do not succeed in stopping the Controllers, ultimately the only people left will be the marching morons, the gullible, and those so apathetic as to have entirely forgotten that freedom can exist." - Jim Keith, [96] Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness PDF of this page: [97] GovenrmentIsSlavery.com/governmentisslavery.pdf References 1. http://exploreistaxationtheft.com/ 2. http://strike-the-root.com/government-is-not-civilization-it-is-slavery 3. http://forejustice.org/vote/voting_is_an_act_of_violence.htm 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaDqNDLpZa8 5. http://www.triviumeducation.com/ 6. http://www.voluntaryist.com/ 7. http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/ 8. https://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-documentaries 9. http://www.tragedyandhope.com/ 10. http://www.logosmedia.com/ 11. http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/ 12. http://www.agorism.info/ 13. http://www.liberty.me/ 14. http://www.c4ss.org/ 15. http://www.mises.org/ 16. http://www.theconsciousresistance.com/ 17. http://www.thefreethoughtproject.com/ 18. http://www.libertarianinstitute.org/ 19. http://www.bravetheworld.com/ 20. http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/ 21. http://www.mindbendingtruth.com/ 22. http://www.mises.org/profile/murray-n-rothbard 23. http://www.sek3.net/ 24. http://archive.org/details/EndOfAllEvil 25. http://bastiat.org/en 26. https://fee.org/people/tom-g-palmer 27. http://brucelevine.net/ 28. http://dollarvigilante.com/ 29. http://ronpaulinstitute.org/ 30. http://thepholosopher.com/ 31. http://www.facebook.com/firstanarchyball 32. http://thecrowhouse.com/home.html 33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Wilson 34. http://tomwoods.com/ 35. http://archive.org/details/nonedarecallitconspiracy_201904 36. http://libcom.org/files/Fire%20in%20the%20Minds%20of%20Men.pdf 37. http://www.michaeltsarion.com/ 38. http://archive.org/search.php?query=g%20edward%20griffin 39. http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ 40. http://gbt.org/text/sayers.html 41. http://wakeup-world.com/category/contributing-writers/ethan-indigo-smith 42. http://archive.org/details/Tavistock_201601 43. http://archive.org/details/TheFranklinCover-upByFormerGreenBeretJohnDecamp 44. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW6Y-93gl0w 45. http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/tg/index.html 46. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-LsHRalB1Yci 47. http://archive.org/details/BeholdAPaleHorseMiltonWilliamCooper 48. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSc_IlFBWkw 49. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgI0liAee4s 50. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/authors/timothy-c-may 51. http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto 52. http://www.infowars.com/ 53. http://www.davidicke.com/ 54. http://darkjournalist.com/ 55. http://twitter.com/hashtag/trutherbot 56. http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/ 57. http://twitter.com/youranonnews 58. http://brovids.com/ 59. http://jamesfetzer.org/ 60. http://daviddfriedman.com/ 61. https://mises.org/profile/edward-stringham 62. http://www.bcaplan.com/ 63. http://www.stephankinsella.com/ 64. https://www.youtube.com/user/AdamKokesh/videos 65. https://mises.org/profile/lysander-spooner 66. http://www.larkenrose.com/ 67. https://www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-... 68. http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/ 69. https://archive.org/details/HealingOurWorldTheCompassionOfLibertarianismHowT... 70. https://mises.org/profile/robert-higgs 71. http://www.larkenrose.com/ 72. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html 73. http://www.larkenrose.com/ 74. http://www.abbeyweb.net/ 75. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/emma-goldman 76. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpsToEHuQAU 77. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=Doug+Casey+quotes 78. https://twitter.com/frednomasters 79. https://mises.org/profile/robert-higgs 80. https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Thoreau/Civil%20Disobedience.pdf 81. http://www.larkenrose.com/ 82. https://mises.org/profile/albert-jay-nock 83. https://fee.org/articles/12-hl-mencken-quotes-on-government-democracy-and-po... 84. http://www.hanshoppe.com/ 85. https://www.iep.utm.edu/nozick/ 86. http://www.larkenrose.com/ 87. https://badquaker.com/ 88. https://www.facebook.com/BadQuakerDotCom 89. http://zerogov.com/ 90. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/clarence-lee-swartz-the-practicabili... 91. https://www.fff.org/blog/ 92. http://voluntaryist.com/how-i-became-a-voluntaryist/charles-r-estes/ 93. http://www.voluntaryist.com/ 94. https://jordanmaxwellshow.com/blog/about/ 95. https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org/Anunnaki%20and%20Ancient%20Hidden%20Tec... 96. https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/32717602/Mass_Control_-_Jim_Keith 97. https://www.governmentisslavery.com/governmentisslavery.pdf http://governmentisslavery.com/blog/ http://governmentisslavery.com/forum/
Some people say that taxation is theft. What do you think about that idea? I disagree with it. man and woman arguing [1] Great! I'm a bot made especially for people who disagree that taxation is theft. I'll be answering from a libertarian perspective. You'll be finished in about five minutes. Even if you don't end up changing your mind, this simulated conversation might be useful for increasing clarity about your own political views. What do you think theft means? Theft is taking something without the owner's consent. Yes, I agree. Here's another question about property to make sure our intuitions are the same before we go on. palm tree [2] Imagine you get stranded on a remote island. No one else is there. You gather a supply of food and store it under a shelter that you built. Later on, another person arrives on the island. Do you consider yourself the owner of the food you have gathered? Yes, I feel as though the food I stored is my property. Good. It looks like we agree so far that property and theft are concepts that are meaningful even without a state or legal system. Extortion is a form of theft in which the thief uses the threat of force to take the victim's property. Libertarians believe taxation is theft, and more specifically extortion. bars [3] Here's Micheal Huemer [4] explaining how libertarians see taxation. When the government "taxes" citizens, what this means is that the government demands money from each citizen, under a threat of force: if you do not pay, armed agents hired by the government will take you away and lock you in a cage. This looks like about as clear a case as any of taking people's property without consent. So with the phrase 'Taxation is theft', what's the most important mistake you think libertarians are making? Without taxation the government couldn't exist. Government, as we know it, wouldn't exist without taxation. But this doesn't have any bearing on whether or not taxation is theft. Yes, alright, but it seems like an important thing to keep in mind. Is there some other mistake you think libertarians make when they say that taxation is theft? The citizens have agreed to be taxed. How has this agreement been established? Most of us pay taxes willingly. If something is given willingly, it can't be theft. It's hard to know how many willingly pay taxes because the government enforces unpleasant penalties on those who don't cooperate, ultimately including violence or imprisonment. donations [5] Perhaps you would voluntarily pay even if you knew you could safely refuse. Let's imagine that many people felt the same way, and that for this majority the threats of violence the government maintains were redundant. Even so, many others would not pay under those circumstances. At least by this group of people the funds are not given willingly. Is there any other reason to suppose that citizens willingly pay taxes? Citizens democratically elect political representatives who run tax programs. ballots [6] There are a few problems here. Voting for a political party is not the same as consenting to the rules that party imposes once in power. For instance a vote may be cast as a defensive move to try to prevent the 'greater evil' from gaining power. Even the winners of voting contests do not have the endorsement of the entire population - most often the population who voted for the winner is a minority. So the idea that 'the people' elect the ones who end up in power obscures the reality that at very best, a numerical majority voted for them. Libertarians believe that the results of elections cannot establish that the citizens have agreed to be taxed - since even in the best case some minority do not agree. Is there any other reason to suppose that citizens willingly pay taxes? By living in a country you implicitly agree to abide by the rules of the state, including taxation. This reply assumes that the state is the rightful owner of the land. Since, if the state was not the owner, it would have no right to impose conditions on anyone staying on that land. Just like I don't have the right to impose conditions on you if you continue to live in your house. On a libertarian view the state is not the owner of the land. Libertarians believe that you can come to be the owner of a thing either by being the first to put it to use (homesteading [7] or original appropriation of an unowned thing) or voluntary transfer from a previous owner. M16 [8] The state's control of the land depends on conquest and threats of force. Its claim is not grounded in a chain of voluntary transfers and original homesteading. So on this view the state cannot be the legitimate owner of the land. I see. Is there any other reason to suppose that citizens willingly pay taxes? The citizens have the right to overthrow a government that doesn't represent them. As long as revolution isn't happening, the citizens must consider the government legitimate. A popular revolt might be good evidence of the illegitimacy of government, but the lack of such a revolt can't establish the legitimacy of the government. Although a joint effort by a large part of the population may be enough to topple a government, such an undertaking is risky, especially in light of what we've learned about the surveillance practices of modern states. Unless many people revolt spontaneously and simultaneously, the few who try to initiate such a change can expect to be targeted and to experience unpleasant treatment at the hands of the state. aeroplane [9] Here's an analogy. Even though none of the hostages on the aeroplane is trying to overpower the gunman, that isn't enough to conclude they're all comfortable with the situation. The people wanting to change the balance of power are worried about what may happen to them if they attempt to assert their will unsuccessfully. Another problem is that opinions about the legitimacy of government differ among the citizens. The number of people who oppose the government may be too small to overthrow it even if they did all act together. In this case the risks of attempting revolution are much greater. Reluctance to endanger yourself in a risky rebellion isn't the same as consent to being ruled. Is there some other mistake you think libertarians make when they say that taxation is theft? Taxation isn't theft, it's a fee for all the services that government provides. coins [10] The state does provide services that many people value and are happy to have carried out. But libertarians object that, unlike a normal purchase, these services were never requested. And not everyone who is made to pay for the services wanted the state to carry them out. bomb [11] As well as services that most feel positively about, the state also carries out tax-funded operations that are much less popular, and very expensive. Like participating in the bombing of citizens in foreign countries. Not only is this activity unrequested by most, it's an activity that a great many oppose and yet are compelled to pay for all the same. We would condemn a private business if it operated this way - imposing unwanted 'services' on unwilling clients and then demanding payment. We would not consider the demands for payment that it made against these 'customers' a legitimate fee. So whether or not you are happy to pay taxes yourself, taxes cannot correctly be described as a fee for services rendered by the state. Is there some other mistake you think libertarians make when they say that taxation is theft? We are the government, so payments to the government can't be theft Here's how Murray Rothbard explained the problem with the idea that we are the government in his book Anatomy of the State [12]. The government does not, in any accurate sense, "represent" the majority of the people. But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority. Is there some other mistake you think libertarians make when they say that taxation is theft? Without taxation how could we fund the public services that society needs? Libertarian thinkers have given accounts of how services like law [13], roads [14], and national defense [15] could be efficiently provided by private businesses. coins [16] But even if life without taxation would mean that we'd have to do without all the services currently provided by the state, this wouldn't help to answer the question of whether or not taxation is theft. It could be the case that taxation is theft and we'd be worse off without it. Have your own views on the claim that taxation is theft changed at all? Maybe. I need more time to think about it. Of course. reading [17] If you'd like to investigate further here's [18] a page with links to resources that you might find useful or interesting. Thanks for taking a look at this resource. If you like, you can support my work at patreon.com/tomaszkaye [19]. References 4. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/is-taxation-theft 7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle 12. https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state 13. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_privat... 14. https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways 15. https://attackthesystem.com/national-defense-and-foreign-policy/ 18. https://exploreistaxationtheft.com/links.php 19. http://patreon.com/tomaszkaye Explore - Is taxation theft? Links Articles [1] The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism [2] Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections [3] But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? [4] Mises Institute Books [5] The Machinery of Freedom [6] The Problem of Political Authority [7] A Spontaneous Order Audio / Visual [8] George Ought to Help [9] You Can Always Leave [10] The Machinery of Freedom: Illustrated Summary [11] Anarcho-capitalism [12] The Tom Woods Show Communities [13] Reddit /r/Anarcho_Capitalism [14] Reddit /r/GoldandBlack [15] Liberty.me References 1. https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html 2. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/longanarchism.pdf 3. https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over 4. https://mises.org/ 5. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf 6. https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/113... 7. https://www.amazon.com/Spontaneous-Order-Capitalist-Stateless-Society/dp/151... 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o 11. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAFF05CF660EE27F6 12. http://tomwoods.com/podcasts/ 13. https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/ 14. https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/ 15. https://liberty.me/
https://exploreistaxationtheft.com/ https://exploreistaxationtheft.com/links.php Some people say that taxation is theft. What do you think about that idea? I disagree with it. man and woman arguing [1] Great! I'm a bot made especially for people who disagree that taxation is theft. I'll be answering from a libertarian perspective. You'll be finished in about five minutes. Even if you don't end up changing your mind, this simulated conversation might be useful for increasing clarity about your own political views. What do you think theft means? Theft is taking something without the owner's consent. Yes, I agree. Here's another question about property to make sure our intuitions are the same before we go on. palm tree [2] Imagine you get stranded on a remote island. No one else is there. You gather a supply of food and store it under a shelter that you built. Later on, another person arrives on the island. Do you consider yourself the owner of the food you have gathered? Yes, I feel as though the food I stored is my property. Good. It looks like we agree so far that property and theft are concepts that are meaningful even without a state or legal system. Extortion is a form of theft in which the thief uses the threat of force to take the victim's property. Libertarians believe taxation is theft, and more specifically extortion. bars [3] Here's Micheal Huemer [4] explaining how libertarians see taxation. " When the government "taxes" citizens, what this means is that the government demands money from each citizen, under a threat of force: if you do not pay, armed agents hired by the government will take you away and lock you in a cage. This looks like about as clear a case as any of taking people's property without consent. " So with the phrase 'Taxation is theft', what's the most important mistake you think libertarians are making? Without taxation the government couldn't exist. Government, as we know it, wouldn't exist without taxation. But this doesn't have any bearing on whether or not taxation is theft. Yes, alright, but it seems like an important thing to keep in mind. Is there some other mistake you think libertarians make when they say that taxation is theft? The citizens have agreed to be taxed. How has this agreement been established? Most of us pay taxes willingly. If something is given willingly, it can't be theft. It's hard to know how many willingly pay taxes because the government enforces unpleasant penalties on those who don't cooperate, ultimately including violence or imprisonment. donations [5] Perhaps you would voluntarily pay even if you knew you could safely refuse. Let's imagine that many people felt the same way, and that for this majority the threats of violence the government maintains were redundant. Even so, many others would not pay under those circumstances. At least by this group of people the funds are not given willingly. Is there any other reason to suppose that citizens willingly pay taxes? Citizens democratically elect political representatives who run tax programs. ballots [6] There are a few problems here. Voting for a political party is not the same as consenting to the rules that party imposes once in power. For instance a vote may be cast as a defensive move to try to prevent the 'greater evil' from gaining power. Even the winners of voting contests do not have the endorsement of the entire population - most often the population who voted for the winner is a minority. So the idea that 'the people' elect the ones who end up in power obscures the reality that at very best, a numerical majority voted for them. Libertarians believe that the results of elections cannot establish that the citizens have agreed to be taxed - since even in the best case some minority do not agree. Is there any other reason to suppose that citizens willingly pay taxes? By living in a country you implicitly agree to abide by the rules of the state, including taxation. This reply assumes that the state is the rightful owner of the land. Since, if the state was not the owner, it would have no right to impose conditions on anyone staying on that land. Just like I don't have the right to impose conditions on you if you continue to live in your house. On a libertarian view the state is not the owner of the land. Libertarians believe that you can come to be the owner of a thing either by being the first to put it to use (homesteading [7] or original appropriation of an unowned thing) or voluntary transfer from a previous owner. M16 [8] The state's control of the land depends on conquest and threats of force. Its claim is not grounded in a chain of voluntary transfers and original homesteading. So on this view the state cannot be the legitimate owner of the land. I see. Is there any other reason to suppose that citizens willingly pay taxes? The citizens have the right to overthrow a government that doesn't represent them. As long as revolution isn't happening, the citizens must consider the government legitimate. A popular revolt might be good evidence of the illegitimacy of government, but the lack of such a revolt can't establish the legitimacy of the government. Although a joint effort by a large part of the population may be enough to topple a government, such an undertaking is risky, especially in light of what we've learned about the surveillance practices of modern states. Unless many people revolt spontaneously and simultaneously, the few who try to initiate such a change can expect to be targeted and to experience unpleasant treatment at the hands of the state. aeroplane [9] Here's an analogy. Even though none of the hostages on the aeroplane is trying to overpower the gunman, that isn't enough to conclude they're all comfortable with the situation. The people wanting to change the balance of power are worried about what may happen to them if they attempt to assert their will unsuccessfully. Another problem is that opinions about the legitimacy of government differ among the citizens. The number of people who oppose the government may be too small to overthrow it even if they did all act together. In this case the risks of attempting revolution are much greater. Reluctance to endanger yourself in a risky rebellion isn't the same as consent to being ruled. Is there some other mistake you think libertarians make when they say that taxation is theft? Taxation isn't theft, it's a fee for all the services that government provides. coins [10] The state does provide services that many people value and are happy to have carried out. But libertarians object that, unlike a normal purchase, these services were never requested. And not everyone who is made to pay for the services wanted the state to carry them out. bomb [11] As well as services that most feel positively about, the state also carries out tax-funded operations that are much less popular, and very expensive. Like participating in the bombing of citizens in foreign countries. Not only is this activity unrequested by most, it's an activity that a great many oppose and yet are compelled to pay for all the same. We would condemn a private business if it operated this way - imposing unwanted 'services' on unwilling clients and then demanding payment. We would not consider the demands for payment that it made against these 'customers' a legitimate fee. So whether or not you are happy to pay taxes yourself, taxes cannot correctly be described as a fee for services rendered by the state. Is there some other mistake you think libertarians make when they say that taxation is theft? We are the government, so payments to the government can't be theft Here's how Murray Rothbard explained the problem with the idea that we are the government in his book Anatomy of the State [12]. " The government does not, in any accurate sense, "represent" the majority of the people. But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority. " Is there some other mistake you think libertarians make when they say that taxation is theft? Without taxation how could we fund the public services that society needs? Libertarian thinkers have given accounts of how services like law [13], roads [14], and national defense [15] could be efficiently provided by private businesses. coins [16] But even if life without taxation would mean that we'd have to do without all the services currently provided by the state, this wouldn't help to answer the question of whether or not taxation is theft. It could be the case that taxation is theft and we'd be worse off without it. Have your own views on the claim that taxation is theft changed at all? Maybe. I need more time to think about it. Of course. reading [17] If you'd like to investigate further here's [18] a page with links to resources that you might find useful or interesting. Thanks for taking a look at this resource. If you like, you can support my work at patreon.com/tomaszkaye [19]. References 4. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/is-taxation-theft 7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle 12. https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state 13. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_privat... 14. https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways 15. https://attackthesystem.com/national-defense-and-foreign-policy/ 18. https://exploreistaxationtheft.com/links.php 19. http://patreon.com/tomaszkaye Explore - Is taxation theft? Links Articles [1] The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism [2] Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections [3] But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? [4] Mises Institute Books [5] The Machinery of Freedom [6] The Problem of Political Authority [7] A Spontaneous Order Audio / Visual [8] George Ought to Help [9] You Can Always Leave [10] The Machinery of Freedom: Illustrated Summary [11] Anarcho-capitalism [12] The Tom Woods Show Communities [13] Reddit /r/Anarcho_Capitalism [14] Reddit /r/GoldandBlack [15] Liberty.me References 1. https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html 2. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/longanarchism.pdf 3. https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over 4. https://mises.org/ 5. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf 6. https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/113... 7. https://www.amazon.com/Spontaneous-Order-Capitalist-Stateless-Society/dp/151... 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o 11. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAFF05CF660EE27F6 12. http://tomwoods.com/podcasts/ 13. https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/ 14. https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/ 15. https://liberty.me/
Government Is Not Civilization, It Is Slavery Column by JGVibes http://strike-the-root.com/user/8854 posted on March 05, 2012 in Statism, Society / Culture, Historical Figures Exclusive to Strike The Root One of the most pervasive misconceptions in our culture is the idea that "government" has anything to do with the structure or organization that we see in our society. This is one of the primary reasons why people have such a difficult time considering the very real possibility of a world without the organization known as "government". When someone suggests that we simply do away with this unjust and unnecessary organization, they are typically met with some very negative knee-jerk reactions from whoever they may be talking to. This kind of conversation typically ends very quickly because both sides have completely different ideas of what the word "government" actually means, making it very difficult to find common ground. If we attempt to examine government from an outsider's perspective, we would see a world where people are grouped into two different categories, those in government and those not. At face value, we can see that these two groups of people have completely different standards and expectations, even though they are the same species and have the same basic needs. Looking closer, we can see that these different standards and laws are not neutral, they are very much benefiting those in government at the expense of those who are not. The most important discrepancy to mention here is the fact that those in government have a license to kill anyone who happens to disobey them. Pointing out this fact is vital in understanding the true relationship between those inside of government and those outside of government, and that is the relationship between slave and master. If someone has the right to initiate the use of force on you if you disobey them, you are essentially their property. If you don't believe me, go on over to Google and type in "slave definition", and the first definition you will find is the following: "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." Now, doesn't that sound a whole lot like the relationship between people inside government and people outside government? If you can force people to do things against their will, then you are treating them as if they were your property. However, if you ask any random person on the street to define "government" for you, they would probably give you the story that they were taught in government school. You know, the one about how government is the backbone of civilization, and the means by which people in the community come together for mutually beneficial projects. Well this may sound good, but it isn't at all true, because the government is comprised by a miniscule fraction of the population, and they would not be able to provide anything at all if it wasn't for the resources that they forcibly extracted from the rest of society. Therefore, it is safe to say that all functions that are currently being carried out by the organization known as "government" could actually be better served by individuals in the community working together for common goals. Voluntary trade, charity and other peaceful methods of interacting would create a far better society than the one that we see today, which is filled with violence and forced associations. It is not a new thing for people to confuse government with culture and have the misconception that without a central planning structure, everything that makes a society great would vanish. This fact was recognized by some of the more radical "founding fathers" of America, including Thomas Paine. In his most famous literary effort "Common Sense", there is a section called "Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution". In this piece, Paine discusses the difference between government and society. Paine writes, "Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without a government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." His statement is as true today as it was during the first American Revolution. Culture, society and security are absolutely capable of continuing in the absence of a central control system. The most common argument against having an organized civilization without government is the notion that we are all somehow stupid, worthless savages who would not be able to figure out how to build a damn road if there wasn't someone with a gun in our face every step of the way, telling us how, when and where to do it. But if people are stupid savages, and politicians are people, then isn't the government made up of a bunch of stupid savages who can't be trusted with a license to kill? Aren't they just the same as us and even in many cases far worse than us? There is nothing that the government can do that you and a large group of likeminded people can't do better. The government doesn't provide services, they simply take money from everyone (except their buddies, of course!) and use a very small portion of that money to pay people in the community to do things for their neighbors that they probably would have done anyway in the natural course of human interaction. Looked at in these terms, it becomes apparent that the government is nothing more than a violent middleman, who forces his way into nearly every interaction that takes place between each of its so-called "citizens". Everything that the government does is an attack on people who don't belong to that organization. If you think about it, every single action that the government takes is some kind of punitive measure taken against people who don't belong to that organization. Even when the government claims to be doing something nice, they are doing so with resources that they obtained by using threats and violence, which really doesn't make much of a case for the virtuousness of government. This organization is not here to protect our rights as it claims to. In fact, when the government steps in and gives itself the responsibility to "protect" your rights, it is simultaneously stripping you of your ability to actually defend your own rights. When you are dependent upon the whims and capabilities of another human being to protect your rights, you are literally handing your rights over to them and essentially submitting to slavery. J.G. Vibes is an author, and artist -- with an established record label. In addition to featuring a wide variety of activist information, his company -- Good Vibes Promotions promotes for electronic dance music events. You can keep up with him and his forthcoming book Alchemy Of The Modern Renaissance, at "www.AOTMR.com". AOTMR will be released this spring, thanks to Leilah Publications. This project features nearly 100 different essays that give historical and philosophical insight into the many important issues that our generation faces. From ethics and voluntary interactions to banking, eugenics and the drug war, AOTMR offers a complete and comprehensive breakdown of the counter culture's struggle.
http://strike-the-root.com/government-is-not-civilization-it-is-slavery Government Is Not Civilization, It Is Slavery Column by JGVibes http://strike-the-root.com/user/8854 posted on March 05, 2012 in Statism, Society / Culture, Historical Figures Exclusive to Strike The Root One of the most pervasive misconceptions in our culture is the idea that "government" has anything to do with the structure or organization that we see in our society. This is one of the primary reasons why people have such a difficult time considering the very real possibility of a world without the organization known as "government". When someone suggests that we simply do away with this unjust and unnecessary organization, they are typically met with some very negative knee-jerk reactions from whoever they may be talking to. This kind of conversation typically ends very quickly because both sides have completely different ideas of what the word "government" actually means, making it very difficult to find common ground. If we attempt to examine government from an outsider's perspective, we would see a world where people are grouped into two different categories, those in government and those not. At face value, we can see that these two groups of people have completely different standards and expectations, even though they are the same species and have the same basic needs. Looking closer, we can see that these different standards and laws are not neutral, they are very much benefiting those in government at the expense of those who are not. The most important discrepancy to mention here is the fact that those in government have a license to kill anyone who happens to disobey them. Pointing out this fact is vital in understanding the true relationship between those inside of government and those outside of government, and that is the relationship between slave and master. If someone has the right to initiate the use of force on you if you disobey them, you are essentially their property. If you don't believe me, go on over to Google and type in "slave definition", and the first definition you will find is the following: "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." Now, doesn't that sound a whole lot like the relationship between people inside government and people outside government? If you can force people to do things against their will, then you are treating them as if they were your property. However, if you ask any random person on the street to define "government" for you, they would probably give you the story that they were taught in government school. You know, the one about how government is the backbone of civilization, and the means by which people in the community come together for mutually beneficial projects. Well this may sound good, but it isn't at all true, because the government is comprised by a miniscule fraction of the population, and they would not be able to provide anything at all if it wasn't for the resources that they forcibly extracted from the rest of society. Therefore, it is safe to say that all functions that are currently being carried out by the organization known as "government" could actually be better served by individuals in the community working together for common goals. Voluntary trade, charity and other peaceful methods of interacting would create a far better society than the one that we see today, which is filled with violence and forced associations. It is not a new thing for people to confuse government with culture and have the misconception that without a central planning structure, everything that makes a society great would vanish. This fact was recognized by some of the more radical "founding fathers" of America, including Thomas Paine. In his most famous literary effort "Common Sense", there is a section called "Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution". In this piece, Paine discusses the difference between government and society. Paine writes, "Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without a government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." His statement is as true today as it was during the first American Revolution. Culture, society and security are absolutely capable of continuing in the absence of a central control system. The most common argument against having an organized civilization without government is the notion that we are all somehow stupid, worthless savages who would not be able to figure out how to build a damn road if there wasn't someone with a gun in our face every step of the way, telling us how, when and where to do it. But if people are stupid savages, and politicians are people, then isn't the government made up of a bunch of stupid savages who can't be trusted with a license to kill? Aren't they just the same as us and even in many cases far worse than us? There is nothing that the government can do that you and a large group of likeminded people can't do better. The government doesn't provide services, they simply take money from everyone (except their buddies, of course!) and use a very small portion of that money to pay people in the community to do things for their neighbors that they probably would have done anyway in the natural course of human interaction. Looked at in these terms, it becomes apparent that the government is nothing more than a violent middleman, who forces his way into nearly every interaction that takes place between each of its so-called "citizens". Everything that the government does is an attack on people who don't belong to that organization. If you think about it, every single action that the government takes is some kind of punitive measure taken against people who don't belong to that organization. Even when the government claims to be doing something nice, they are doing so with resources that they obtained by using threats and violence, which really doesn't make much of a case for the virtuousness of government. This organization is not here to protect our rights as it claims to. In fact, when the government steps in and gives itself the responsibility to "protect" your rights, it is simultaneously stripping you of your ability to actually defend your own rights. When you are dependent upon the whims and capabilities of another human being to protect your rights, you are literally handing your rights over to them and essentially submitting to slavery. J.G. Vibes is an author, and artist -- with an established record label. In addition to featuring a wide variety of activist information, his company -- Good Vibes Promotions promotes for electronic dance music events. You can keep up with him and his forthcoming book Alchemy Of The Modern Renaissance, at "www.AOTMR.com". AOTMR will be released this spring, thanks to Leilah Publications. This project features nearly 100 different essays that give historical and philosophical insight into the many important issues that our generation faces. From ethics and voluntary interactions to banking, eugenics and the drug war, AOTMR offers a complete and comprehensive breakdown of the counter culture's struggle.
http://forejustice.org/vote/voting_is_an_act_of_violence.htm Voting Is An Act of Violence by Hans Sherrer (1999) Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in their lifetime. This little noted anomaly about voting is directly related to the modern conception of the State as an entity deriving its grant of authority to act from the consent of the governed. The aura of legitimacy surrounding the government's actions is enhanced by the perceived role of voting as an expression of the "people's will". Whether non-threatening or violent, the authority for each and every one of the government's actions is presumed to flow from the consent of the people through the electoral process. School children are told this from their earliest years. The idea the State derives its power to act from the consent of the people sounds romantic. Few people, however, are aware that by definition the State's power is for the specific purpose of engaging in acts of violence. No grant of power is necessary for anyone, or any organization to act peacefully. This is no secret among scholars, and sociologist Max Weber's definition of the State is considered one of the most authoritative: "A state is a human institution that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. ... The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence." [1] The legitimizing impact of voting on the government's exercise of power intimately involves voters in the use of that power. Which means that non-voters tend to delegitimize the exercise of a government's power as an expression of the "will of the people". So if no one voted in an election or only a small percentage of people did, the government couldn't profess to be empowered to act as an agent of the "people's will". Without the protective cover provided by voters, the government would have no pretense to act except as a law unto itself. Consequently, the government's actions and the voters who legitimize them are linked together. Thus at a minimum, voters are spiritually involved in every act engaged in by the government. Including all violent acts. This involvement in the government's violence isn't, tempered by the nominal peacefulness of a person's life apart from voting. By choosing to vote a person integrates the violence engaged in by the government as a part of their life. This is just as true of people that didn't vote for a candidate who supports particular policies they may disagree with, as it is for those that did. It is going through the motion of voting that legitimizes the government to act in their name, not who or what they vote for. This means that the violence perpetrated by any one person pales in scope or significance when compared to that which is authorized to be taken by the government in the name of those who vote. The combined ghoulish violence of every identifiable serial killer in American history can't match the violence of even one of any number of violent actions taken by the government as the people's representative. A prominent example of this is the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf war in 1991. These sanction prevented Iraq from rebuilding its destroyed sanitation, water, and electric power infrastructure that were specifically targeted by the U. S. military for destruction. Supported and enforced by the U. S., these sanctions are credited by UNICEF and other organizations with contributing to the gruesome deaths of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 children a month for over 8-1/2 years. [2] All voters share in the government's contribution to the unnecessary deaths of these children caused by disease and a reduced standard of living. So the over half-a-million deaths of innocent children in Iraq in the years after 1991's Gulf war are on the blood stained hands of every voter in the U.S. The same dynamic of voter involvement in government atrocities is true of the many hundreds of civilian deaths caused by the bombing of Yugoslavian cities in the spring and summer of 1999 that the United States participated in. This was a small scale recreation of the atomic bombing of the non-military cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Hundreds of thousands of innocent women, children and old people were killed from the initial bomb blasts and the long-term effects of radiation exposure. [3] Those bombings had been preceeded by the U.S. military's killing of many hundreds of thousands of non-combatants during the firebombings of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin. All of those people were killed in the name of the voters that had elected the Roosevelt administration in 1944 by a landslide. Voting, like a missile fired at an unseen target many miles away, is a long-distance method of cleanly participating in the most horrific violence imaginable. So declining to vote does much more than cause a statistical entry on the non-voting side of a ledger sheet. It is a positive way for a person to lower their level of moral responsibility for acts of violence engaged in by the government that they would never engage in personally, and that they don't want to be committed in their name as a voter. Non-voting is a positive way for a person to publicly express the depth of their private belief in respecting the sanctity of life, and that violence is only justified in self-defense. The social sphere in which most people live is notable for the level of peaceful cooperation that normally prevails in it. The majority of people strive to better their lives by working together with other people in the pursuit of their mutual self-interest. [4] This community spirit of non-violent cooperation supported by non-voting, stands in sharp contrast to the societal violence endorsed by the act of voting, ENDNOTES [1] "Politics as a Vocation", Max Weber, in "From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology", edited by C. Wright Mills, Oxford University Press, NY, 1946, p. 78. [2] See e.g., "Sanctions of Mass Destruction", John Mueller and Karl Mueller, Foreign Affairs, May/June, 1999. vol. 78. no. 3, pp. 43-53; and, "U, S. Weapons of Mass Destruction Linked to Deaths of a Half-Million Children", in "Censored 1999: The News That Didn't Make the News - The Year's Top 25 Censored Stories", Peter Phillips and Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, NY, 1999, pp. 43-46. [3] See e.g., "Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb", Ronald Takaki, Little Brown & Company. Boston, 1995; and, "Hiroshima in. America: A Half Century of Denial", Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Avon, NY, 1996. [4] See e.g., "The Evolution of Cooperation", Robert Axelrod, Basic Books, New York, 1984; "Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity", John H. Holland, Perseus Press, 1996; and, "Reputation: Studies in the Voluntary Elicitation of Good Conduct", edited by Daniel B. Klein, University of Michigan Press, 1997.
participants (1)
-
grarpamp