without taxation police force would be payed what they deserve not just some of your money, without taxation teacher could be payed properly, without taxation the union would be payed more cutting domestic spending, without taxation the state would not go for program's that you won't like, without taxation there would be allot less robbery of our money
@DystopianUtopia That's a non sequitor. Private companies have no authority. Ever seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa? That was built by a private company.
If you don't agree with minors being taxed what are you waiting for !? aren't you part of the people that control the government !? Naive/ignorant an explosive cocktail for destruction
you really need to watch: Invisible empire: A new world order defined.
Also: what in the world are they spraying,,,, so you can TRY to understand ho w easy it is for governments to keep ignorant pseudo know it alls like yourself from knowing things that are right in front of your eyes. Do humanity a favor and stick to silent forms of expression
Capitalist mode of production has revolutionised technology/ science and human organisation to such an extent that Market System has become a FALSE LIMIT to truly and effectively taking care of our NEEDS AND WELL BEING. We need to share the Earth in COOPERATION not in COMPETITION and transcend the PROFIT motive to SANCTITY OF LIFE. We have all the means and resources , the human creative genius for a meaningfull path of harmony within and without.
I'm sorry but it's obvious that you didn't really think this through before you posted it... or that u didn't think thru any of your arguments beyond a very thin vale...
If there was a demand someone would build one and charge for admittance. Yes public schools are the only alternative and they do such a wonderful job as you so elegantly display in your pure ignorance of what government is "NEEDED" for. The public education system is a joke. Our founders managed to found a nation without public education. Most were autodidacts. There is also the option of home schooling and private schools. Way to think outside the box.
You, idiot, it doesn't matter if there are problems in the system, it doesn't mean we have to do away with them. Public schools are needed because if we didn't have them worse private schools would take over with no other interest than to indoctrinate our kids into religion or commercialism. Sorry, the public schools are still needed. YOu are completely naive if you think that the majority of people could afford private schools or home schooling.
There would be vouchers for lower income students to help provide competition between the different schools. Also, they all wouldn't be religious in nature, the only reason so many private schools are religiously oriented is because of the tax breaks. Home schooling is free :-) Also, nothing would stop a mom from charging a few bucks to teach a few other kids in a neighborhood. You say we don't have to do away with taxes but provide no valid support for your claim.
Also, have you never heard of charity. Do you honestly believe that charitable organizations would no provide some sort of voucher system for some of the poor?
@BlueFireWitch And why not? Do you think the state decided to be altruistic? The guarantee of education, healthcare, and other public services comes from the struggle and demands of the common people, and a much more flexible non-bureaucratic system is indeed possible!
@Wishchrono What are you referring to? I've never said that the system is perfect. No system anywhere is perfect, but taxes are necessary for a system at all.
@BlueFireWitch These anarcho capitalists don't understand how anything works, they suffer from the delusion that unfettered capitalism will somehow make everything better and that government isn't necessary. Their blind faith in "free market" is borderline fanaticism, many advocate canceling social security (class genocide) and privatizing our police, roads, fire departments, and schools, handing all social functions over to private companies.
Also, the public school system indoctrinates children, simply not into anyone religion. The indoctrination takes on a statist approach. Key elements of education are skewed or omitted because the education system is controlled by the state. You have yet to provide a valid reason for the forceful taking of our money to support these unneeded and evil institutions. You are simply spewing what you have been taught is true without any critical thinking on the subject.
The public school system has much less indoctrination because we have a measure of control over what happens there. I had a problem at my school and my mom went to the school board and fixed it. You couldn't do that with a private system, they'd have no accountability.
Do you not know what accountability means? With public schools, the government tells you which school you can go to. With a private school you simply take your money elsewhere. Private schools are accountable to their customers! If you pull a child out of a public school, it doesn't matter, the school is still getting money through tax dollars. If the government would move aside, more secular private schools would be available. You assume Christian schools are the only alternative.
Elsewhere? Without regulation or government who's to say one school will be better than another if they are all run by the same or similar organizations. You can't guarantee that and it will cost MORE. It's ridiculously stupid.
Haha, your own argument more easily supports my view than yours. Public schools are controlled by one entity, government. Sure that government control is broken up into boards and several levels, with a small amount of autonomy, but ultimately they are all controlled by one organization. A secular school, without government, would have complete autonomy. You also view education as a right, which is a flaw in your premise. People have a right to education, but not at tax payer expense.
Children aren't old enough to choose that and their parents are harming them by not educating them. Once again, an absolutely irrational and ridiculous assertion.
@raider6504 Having a public school system is actually a benefit to our society. It creates an educated working class that improves our economy and prevents jobs from being sent overseas where people might have access to cheaper/better education. If you were raised in the country, you probably grew up in the public school system, and your children will have the same benefit, so it's kind of ridiculous to claim you shouldn't owe taxes for it, unless you want to state you'd prefer to be uneducated.
@thegreatfish The public schools to a poor job of educating children. They force children to learn what the state decides they should learn rather than what the individual child wants to learn. They also stifle individuality and the ability to reason. Instead they promote conformity and simple memorization. Individuals are free to educate themselves if they are unable to afford private schooling, and they would be better off for it. There is also no accountability in the public school system...
@raider6504 I can't really picture a 3rd grader with the capability to educate himself. Schools also offer technical training, and there's plenty of professional schools that already offer "apprenticeships". Regardless, I hardly think the fact that the government forces children to study math, science, and language makes a valid argument that the public schools do a poor job of educating children.
@thegreatfish They force children into conformity and require they waste valuable time learning subjects they aren't inclined towards or aren't interest in. Formal education has not always been the norm. Franklin and Einstein were both autodidacts and had they been forced to become "educated" in the subjects others thought they should learn it likely would have been a hinderance. Parents can teach that 3rd grader the basics of reading and writing...
@raider6504 Well I think it's a stretch to say that just because a person isn't inclined towards....let's say... Math, they can't learn it and become proficient in the subject. Also, not all parents are capable/have the time to stay at home everyday and give their children a full education.
@thegreatfish The post directly below should go above. Sure SOME could become proficient, but most will not if they aren't inclined or motivated to do so. So why should they be forced to waste their time on such subjects? If a child discovers their passion in life requires a proficiency in math, than they can either attempt to master said subject or discover a new passion like writing, HIST, etc. All parent are not capable, but why are the children not accountable for their own education?
@raider6504 I think it would be a mistake to make a 2nd grader accountable for their own education. Also, I don't see how telling a 2nd grader if they don't like basic math they don't need to learn it will lead to a better education system than we have now.
@raider6504 (continued) than the child and/or parent (depending on age/ability of child) should be able to decide what they are inclined towards. This is not only an attack on public schools, but the idea of schooling in general. How many 12 y/o's can get into a tech school if they choose? It's considered higher education and generally you have to be around 18 y/o. Why should children be discouraged from pursuing technical careers at younger ages? Also, by tech, I don't mean computer literacy.
@thegreatfish (continued) Public schools get funding based upon their success rate and the scores on standardized tests. So most simply teach children the tests.
Lastly, education is not for everyone. Some children would be better off being able to apprentice with a mechanic, refrigerator repairman, electrician, chef, etc... Why should children be compelled to complete school if they are inclined to a technical field? Real world training is far more valuable than schooling for those kids.
Also, without government, the cost of education would be lowered in the private sector. Competition not only effects quality of service, but costs as well. The citizens would have control over prices in the form of what worth they placed on education. You seem to only few private schools in the form of Catholic institutions,etc. This is completely irrational. Secular schools would have to answer only to their customers, they would teach what their customers wanted taught. Same concept but wo god
@BlueFireWitch really?! are you sure you'd keep buying milk if they started to charge 10 dollars a gallon? there is nothing to prevent them from doing that, by your argument they would be charging this much already. But suppose they did... every single milk producer would have to raise prices at the same time. OK suppose that this somehow happened! I'm sure you would switch to something else, no one would pay that much. Please stop telling people things you do not know and do not understand!
@collapseofthedollar Actually she's correct on this point. Privatizing everything with voluntarism would create a monopoly on many public features. Take the highway system for example. If one corporation owns all the roads in a city, what will be your alternative source for travel if they decide to charge outrageous prices? You can move to a new city, or you can stay at home all the time. It doesn't sound like much of an alternative. Voluntarism has far too many flaws to be a realistic choice.
@thegreatfish Wrong. Government facilitates monopolies. There would be a minimal risk of monopolies developing in an Ancap system, but in most instances the free market would prevent it from happening. What would they gain if they priced the use of their roads to high? It is in a companies best interest to charge the highest price a majority of people are WILLING to pay to maximize profits. One company owning all roads is not likely, so other companies would undercut the higher prices.
@raider6504 "One company owning all roads is not likely, so other companies would undercut the higher prices"
I'm not sure how many roads you think people live on. I personally only have one road in front of my house. I don't know who you think I would turn to if someone decided to buy it and keep it for personal use.
@thegreatfish They think that somehow everything will just work out, private companies will somehow be perfectly regulated by customers, that private industry can be trusted implicitly, and that competition will somehow always make things better for the common good. They even imagine that corporations require governments to exist, not just because of the necessity of a stable economy and rule of law, but because they think companies need special government permission to form corporations.
So because of the French Revolution, we should give welfare handouts to the poor so they won't revolt? Please, your justifications are illogical and you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the French Revolution. I suggest you educate yourself, clearly the public school system failed you, before entering into debates.
I never said Christian schoosl were the only alternative, Now you're grasping at straws, I specifically said commercial or religious indoctrination including private enterprises.
You can't base your support on a flawed system based upon "possible" indoctrination. I'm not the one grasping at straws here. The free market is a far better deterrent against indoctrination than a government controlled school system. Sure indoctrination would still exist in the form of religion at Catholic schools, but their is very little evidence to support the secular indoctrination you suggest seeing as it would not be in the best interest of the private school owner.
By the way, I had to edit this due to character count. The first sentence was in response to something I deleted w/o realizing. It is in reference to aquariums, zoos, and such. If people wanted them, someone would build them. Government isn't need to provide those things either. You assume everything government does is needed however, which is the major flaw in your premise found in the video above.
I don't assume everythign governement does it needed. Yet, another grasping at strawman statement. I don't think we could survive without a unified force to protect us and history is on my side, ALl you have is blatant speculation.
@raider6504 I actually think you're the one who's probably holding an untenable position. For starters, there's no way to have a voluntary system of government the way you describe it. Some things are necessary for every day life. I need access to roads to leave my home. As a result, I'm forced to pay whoever owns the roads, therefore, it's not voluntary, unless you actually believe never leaving your house is a viable option.
Perhaps you just don't realize how naive you actually are.
@thegreatfish Private roads are in fact a viable option. If you are interested in the idea of completely private roads you can read Dr. Walter Block's book, "The Privatization of Roads." I'm also not talking about voluntary government, I'm talking about NO government. Government is an UNnecessary evil.
LMAO, you have to eat as well and you are "forced" to buy your food from someone who produces it. What is wrong with paying for what you need? I many instances roads would be paid by businesses
@raider6504 Yes, but I can get food from any number of manufacturers and vendors. There's only one road in front of my house. I have no choice but to pay taxes to use it and consent to the rules that govern it, so how is that any different from the taxes I'm paying now?
it wasnt until after 1913 that they set out to compel non government worker do pay this and in 1936 less than 4% filed returns. at no time prior to 1942 eight decades after it was introduced did more than 8% ever file returns in any given year. not until 1943 and the "victory tax " did it rise to 38%. wow we funded wars AND a whole flipping nation on 38% ... no roads though
This video isn't "pro" a specific type of taxes. Simply that taxes of some sort are necessary. So regardless of when taxes were made in effect. The fact is we need them. Hence, they were enacted. Things are a lot different now than then. So try taking away all federal funding, or even all state funding and see what happens. Total chaos, that's what. You can't have law and order without taxes. If you're not paying the government to do it, you'll pay a private organization to.
none put a gun to your head. did you sighn a w4 when u started your job? why ? its a contract, without it your not liable to the tax but you believe without it u cant work. lIES your a slave and you put the chains on yourself .
. A tariff is one form of an impost, which is of course one of the three kinds of indirect taxes authorized by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, for the government to lay and collect. However, as a tax on foreign activity or on the importation of goods from a foreign country, a tariff clearly is not, and cannot be, legally or lawfully applied to the domestic activities of American citizens.
an elaborate system has been created which causes some people to whom the tax laws do not otherwise apply (maybe including you) to inadvertently declare themselves to be among the persons to whom those laws do apply.
That income, wages, self-employment income, employee, employer and trade or business-- as these and certain other terms are used within, and in regard to, the tax law-- have narrow legal meanings exclusively involving, and applying to, certain privileged activities, such as holding or administering a government office, or working in one.
Sorry, but that's impractical and irrelevant as my video was a response video to one other person and my arguments are very valid. You are simply butt hurt about living in society and realizing that nothing is for free.
Your comment makes no sense as laughingman was not part of the original argument and your comment is very childish. If you want anyone to grow up look in the mirror.
If taxation is not forceful, then why must tax collecting bureaucracies purchase large quantities of weapons and ammunition? Since the scientific empirical definition of political state according to all legal theory is a monopoly on the usage of violence over a geographical territory, it is logically necessary to conclude that all laws and actions by the state can be traced to the usage of physical force. All practiced law is physical force, whether it be tax law or murder law.
How about unjust taxes? The death tax? Why was that ever implemented? War tax? Spread the wealth, right? What founding father wrote this? "The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who would not"
you are fucking stupid . what commi dreamland are you living in ?
are you aware of the revolutionary war was about unfair taxation? "if you dont want to pay taxes leave" ... ? really just what tax are you talking about anyway ? there are tons of them .
are you aware that this country existed for hundreds of years without a income tax? write your congressman HA stupid you need to go you dont deserve to be hear your a salve anyway .
YOu are apparently fucking stupid because the revolutionary war folks who complained about taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION also taxed the people with the new government. Epic fail. LOL
what tax are you talking about ? the federal income tax is not a tax placed on all people for anything they earn. your ignorant of the how the tax works and go shooting your mouth off like an idiot. this was THE MOST ignorant rant ive heard in along time. you leave your the who doesnt understand how it works. typical stupid ass liberal dyke.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Taxes must be a burden, but it is necessary. If we want good services, that is what needs to be done. The new possible health care system will also require this. I like the whole Island thing.
I am not sure about this, so feel free t correct me if I am wrong. I may not be certain, but if it is right, it fits to be said here.
In 1923 Germany tried printing money, and that lead to hyper inflation. This would probably be the only alternative to taxing, and that failed.
You have a choice. Assuming of course you you dont have a criminal record. Which pretty much means you can leave IF, and only IF the state says you can leave. Wow Bluefire, stellar argument... honestly youve been owned so badly in this video I think you should probably just stop talking now.
Yeah youre right. Clearly nothing can go wrong in a system where the state defines crimes and controls the ability for you to leave or not. You should probably go look up Japanese Americans, 1942 BFW, I bet theres a whole SHIT LOAD of them that would have liked to get the hell out of the states.... oh wait they couldnt, because being japanese was a crime at that time. Great argument, youre clearly well informed.
And if you're sprung from prison you paid you're debt.
There's also requiring to have a passport and expatriation taxes.
Not to mention no other organization can legitimately use the social contract to "tax" people within a given area that the organization has little to no ties of labor or property to.
And really that last part (to me) is the absolute essence of the problem. Government has zero legitimate claim to our labour. I find it funny BFW comes on here and says the United States requires taxes.... when the United States was founded by people that absolutely despised unfair taxation. They threw tea overboard because they thought taxing that was unfair, anyone want to take a stab about what they would do if forced to pay income tax....
Yeah, and the sad thing is it lasted, what ,10 years? The whiskey Rebellion? Americans went from one group of thugs extorting them to another, just closer to home, and obviously they did not "consent" to be governed.
Obviously you cant or refuse to read what I wrote. I said ILL TELL YOU WHY and then proceded to give you an argument, I really don't have time for your petty bullshit and half assed arguments.
Not at all, that's a horrible argument and I'll tell you why. We have a choice to stay or leave. I gave a perfectly good plan to credible2 on how to leave and start his own country.
"don't have time to watch bullshit, i know i'm right."? that can't seriously be your attitude. do you really think like that, or are you being sarcastic? maybe you watched his video and realized that you were wrong, but don't want to admit it. come on. do the right thing. everyone's wrong sometimes.
No, I haven't watched it and I don't care to. Seriously have better things to do. I never intended on speaking to anyone except credible2 on this issue and I won't "take on" every anarchist nut that comes out of the woodwork. It's a downward spiral.
in my opinion, laughingman did a better job defending the "anarchist" position you were arguing against, so it wouldn't hurt to address his points as well...
Now you are blocked for hateful comments. This video has jack shit to do with my religion, which is why I don't want to focus on it. Thanks for proving yourself to be nothing more than a hater and a bigot.
10 seconds every few weeks? Yeah, that's plenty of time. I don't have time to have some idiot use the same cliches when I consider the matter to be closed. This was an A to B conversation.
yeah, well judging from his audience, it seems pretty accurate. Also, pretty much anyone who argues that to live in modern society without needing taxes is pretty much a moron.
From my collegiate studies of political science and sociology, I realize that it's a utopian philosophy with no real world application usually left to zealots and dreamers.
Yes laughingman destroyed her video. It is easy to call something nutty and a waste of time. It is another to be able to make a counter argument. She knows very little about anarchism besides what you maybe learned in some compartive politics class which does a very shallow/shitty job.
Please cite some supreme court cases or the staute which makes it legal then BFW, and dont post the 16th amdemant, because we all know that has its problems.... you can say ---No its not---- all you like, i want legal proof.
If the Supreme court refuses to hear a case, that is it's prerogative. Tariffs and excise taxes are explicitly authorized in the constitution itself. This does not change the coercive nature of them.
The second President put through a law that clearly defied the first amendment. the courts said it didn't. The time for us to wake up is long past due. I invite you to my channel, my newer videos all have many great resources for study in the description.
hmm... Shes not the brightest crayon in the box.... I believe that Income tax is illegal, sales tax on the other hand is what pays for Federal mandates such as Police, Fire dept, roads, etc. I work hard and get 1/3 of my income stolen, and that money goes to paying off a debt of wars and a welfare state I don't support!
isn't it funny how people just type insults? like that will discredit you. angering people means you're doing something right. keep up the great work.
Evidently your ideology is the same as any major mafia throughout history who has "owned" a town. Try not paying your taxes. If you refuse, you'll be detained. If you refuse, then yes, there will be a gun placed to your head to comply or die.
You've produced some very good videos, Bluefire Witch, but, alas, this is not one of them. You lost me pretty quickly on this one. While I agree that taxation is a necessary evil in an imperfect world, "If you don't like it, leave" is one of the most infuriatingly cliché (and simply infuriating) of thought-terminating arguments. Sophistic logic scattered through the rest of the speech only degraded your argument further.
Your "If you don't like it, leave" argument justifies every piece of violence in the history of the world. Do wives consent to being beaten if they don't leave, regardless of what dangers they face if they do? Do children consent to child abuse by not crawling away from their abuser? How about slaves? Did the Jews consent to the holocaust by not leaving Germany? Think your arguments through to their conclusion before you make them, because that one is pretty disgusting.
Okay i wanted to add another supreme court case you can look up BFW. Go check out Stanton v. Baltic Mining company... ill quote directly from the verdict. ----The 16th Amendmant (which tried to allow for direct taxes) conferred no new powers of taxation--- there are exceptions to this, but for the most part if you do some research youll find that the average citizen working in private business or industry technicly doesnt have to pay income tax, as it is unconstitutional.
physical, and thus its a direct tax because there is literally NOTHING you can do to avoid it... the supreme court has ruled on this several times (Pollock v Farmers) off the top of my head... you seem reasonably smart BFW, please do some research before you come on youtube and tell people that taxation is your citizenship, because honestly if you know US history, youd realise NOTHING could be further from the truth.
Blue fire witch i wish you would be a bit more specific when you say taxes? Are you referring to government sales tax? income tax? goods tax? because the constitution does allow for direct taxes... which is to say that you can tax SOMETHING, be it tobacco or w/e... its called direct b/c you can avoid it (grow your own tobacco, dont smoke). Income tax however, is illegal and unconstitutional in that it is an indirect unapportioned tax, meaning you arent taxing ANYTHING.
in case you can't fathom this ...this country was here long before the colonists arrived and there was the tribe.. no money.......imagine that? none of your precious money and fast food restaurants..the monetary system corrupts and is the source of most wars...save the bit about indians fought too...not the subject..they didn't try to own people and land.....they had reverance for nature.....your points don't negate what credible too said...THEY DO FORCE YOU...try not paying....they lock ya up
so i get to vote on who misallocates my resources which they systematically steal from me? well, i guess that's okay then. srsly. think about it. the reason you see no alternatives to statism is because you haven't looked into it enough. it's pounded into your head like a religion, from preschool to college to your job as a corporate slave, working for government granted monopolies.
you are paying for huge infrastructure and armed forces, and servicing inturnal debt.hospitals and schools. and mismanagement.its better to move away from the citys . and go bush but that costs money to.
As a monopoly the state will try to maximize its profits. Presidents since they only have power for a short period of time have a high time preference and will try to change things which can harm society in the long term. The state is nothing more than a violent institution which came out of religion. To link civilization with statism is absurd.
Why not tax the islanders to provide them cars, clothes, food, entertainment? Why do you assume only some functions are available through a free market and others *must* be provided in a violent manner? This might be a good time to really honestly analyze assumptions youve been making for quite a long time.
Chris I'm with you on this one. I believe in small government that focuses on basics and a strong military as you know. Without government at all society would break down. You make good points here.
You fall for the typical statist trap of viewing the state as this all powerful & all knowing entity. In reality, it is simply an association of hand-picked people from that society.
With this said, what ultimately comes into play is the values of the people. When people don't adhere to the non-aggression principle (or voluntarism), than no matter how powerful the Government, it will not be able to tame the people (mostly because this valueless people will be the Government).
"So what is going to stop a guy from breaking in to your house, killing you and rapping your wife? Your gun? Well what if there are 30 of the thugs?"
There are protection agencies. And society and the market would regulate behavior. The Government really doesn't protect you from these thugs, it comes after the fact and locks people in cages. You are 30x more likely to die from the Government than from a private citizen.
In your attempt to be condescending and patronizing, you shown yourself to be a real jackass. Your argument is baseless. I sincerely suggest you research before you open you yap.
It's one thing to open your mouth and insult, it's quite another to pose another side to the argument. I've yet to hear anything from you that sounds like an argument.
Phone service is hardly the same thing. We're talking about the government, if you can find a competing alternative, go there, but as I said it's a necessary evil. not a luxury service with competing rivals like the phone company.
"Love it or leave!" LOL wow
jiveturkey86 8 months ago
without taxation police force would be payed what they deserve not just some of your money, without taxation teacher could be payed properly, without taxation the union would be payed more cutting domestic spending, without taxation the state would not go for program's that you won't like, without taxation there would be allot less robbery of our money
halofhellproductions 11 months ago
no, no, no, no, no, NO, NO!!!
suchafool990 11 months ago
"Without taxes we wouldn't have a military, we wouldn't have a police force, fire department, education system, roads, bridges, etc"
I literally laughed at that statement. That's like someone in 1850 saying "Without slaves there wouldn't be anyone to pick cotton."
DystopianUtopia 1 year ago 2
@DystopianUtopia That's a non sequitor. Private companies have no authority. Ever seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa? That was built by a private company.
BlueFireWitch 1 year ago
If you don't agree with minors being taxed what are you waiting for !? aren't you part of the people that control the government !? Naive/ignorant an explosive cocktail for destruction
manelmariarodrigues 1 year ago
you really need to watch: Invisible empire: A new world order defined.
Also: what in the world are they spraying,,,, so you can TRY to understand ho w easy it is for governments to keep ignorant pseudo know it alls like yourself from knowing things that are right in front of your eyes. Do humanity a favor and stick to silent forms of expression
manelmariarodrigues 1 year ago
Necessary evil ?! OMG, the propaganda/demoralization process is working
manelmariarodrigues 1 year ago
the ignorant are full of certainty (blue witch a perfect example) and the wise have never had nmore doubts........................
The problem is you can be completely theoretical and have a practical influence on other people.
This girl is completely trapped inside the mind prison...... the video is just her ego saying you are right.......
lol, sad
manelmariarodrigues 1 year ago
There's more to extorted wealth than direct taxation. Way more. Most of the governments money comes from counterfeiting and borrowing.
Skyler827 1 year ago
117 negative votes - nothing else to say.
This woman is so boring that I fell asleep half way through reading her name.
throbule 1 year ago
@throbule Obviously you have nothing to add to the conversation.
BlueFireWitch 1 year ago
@BlueFireWitch:
And obviously you have nothing - period!
throbule 1 year ago
@throbule Only, the evidence that was presented in the film and not yet refuted.
BlueFireWitch 1 year ago
@BlueFireWitch:
YawN...............
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ
throbule 1 year ago
@throbule troll.....
BlueFireWitch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalist mode of production has revolutionised technology/ science and human organisation to such an extent that Market System has become a FALSE LIMIT to truly and effectively taking care of our NEEDS AND WELL BEING. We need to share the Earth in COOPERATION not in COMPETITION and transcend the PROFIT motive to SANCTITY OF LIFE. We have all the means and resources , the human creative genius for a meaningfull path of harmony within and without.
arzoyan 1 year ago
Now this is funny
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
plenty of non-citizens pay taxes
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
I'm sorry but it's obvious that you didn't really think this through before you posted it... or that u didn't think thru any of your arguments beyond a very thin vale...
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
If there was a demand someone would build one and charge for admittance. Yes public schools are the only alternative and they do such a wonderful job as you so elegantly display in your pure ignorance of what government is "NEEDED" for. The public education system is a joke. Our founders managed to found a nation without public education. Most were autodidacts. There is also the option of home schooling and private schools. Way to think outside the box.
raider6504 2 years ago
You, idiot, it doesn't matter if there are problems in the system, it doesn't mean we have to do away with them. Public schools are needed because if we didn't have them worse private schools would take over with no other interest than to indoctrinate our kids into religion or commercialism. Sorry, the public schools are still needed. YOu are completely naive if you think that the majority of people could afford private schools or home schooling.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
There would be vouchers for lower income students to help provide competition between the different schools. Also, they all wouldn't be religious in nature, the only reason so many private schools are religiously oriented is because of the tax breaks. Home schooling is free :-) Also, nothing would stop a mom from charging a few bucks to teach a few other kids in a neighborhood. You say we don't have to do away with taxes but provide no valid support for your claim.
raider6504 2 years ago
How can you guarantee vouchers for lower income students in a system with no taxation and no government, Now you're really living in a fantasy world
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Also, have you never heard of charity. Do you honestly believe that charitable organizations would no provide some sort of voucher system for some of the poor?
raider6504 2 years ago
You can't count on charity. That's living in a dream world.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
@BlueFireWitch COUPLE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR GIVEN AWAY TO CHARITY IN THE US dream world.
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
@collapseofthedollar Are you trying to make a point here?
BlueFireWitch 1 year ago
@BlueFireWitch And why not? Do you think the state decided to be altruistic? The guarantee of education, healthcare, and other public services comes from the struggle and demands of the common people, and a much more flexible non-bureaucratic system is indeed possible!
Wishchrono 1 year ago
@Wishchrono What are you referring to? I've never said that the system is perfect. No system anywhere is perfect, but taxes are necessary for a system at all.
BlueFireWitch 1 year ago
@BlueFireWitch These anarcho capitalists don't understand how anything works, they suffer from the delusion that unfettered capitalism will somehow make everything better and that government isn't necessary. Their blind faith in "free market" is borderline fanaticism, many advocate canceling social security (class genocide) and privatizing our police, roads, fire departments, and schools, handing all social functions over to private companies.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Also, the public school system indoctrinates children, simply not into anyone religion. The indoctrination takes on a statist approach. Key elements of education are skewed or omitted because the education system is controlled by the state. You have yet to provide a valid reason for the forceful taking of our money to support these unneeded and evil institutions. You are simply spewing what you have been taught is true without any critical thinking on the subject.
raider6504 2 years ago
The public school system has much less indoctrination because we have a measure of control over what happens there. I had a problem at my school and my mom went to the school board and fixed it. You couldn't do that with a private system, they'd have no accountability.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Do you not know what accountability means? With public schools, the government tells you which school you can go to. With a private school you simply take your money elsewhere. Private schools are accountable to their customers! If you pull a child out of a public school, it doesn't matter, the school is still getting money through tax dollars. If the government would move aside, more secular private schools would be available. You assume Christian schools are the only alternative.
raider6504 2 years ago
Elsewhere? Without regulation or government who's to say one school will be better than another if they are all run by the same or similar organizations. You can't guarantee that and it will cost MORE. It's ridiculously stupid.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Haha, your own argument more easily supports my view than yours. Public schools are controlled by one entity, government. Sure that government control is broken up into boards and several levels, with a small amount of autonomy, but ultimately they are all controlled by one organization. A secular school, without government, would have complete autonomy. You also view education as a right, which is a flaw in your premise. People have a right to education, but not at tax payer expense.
raider6504 2 years ago
A right to choose if they want an education*
raider6504 2 years ago
Children aren't old enough to choose that and their parents are harming them by not educating them. Once again, an absolutely irrational and ridiculous assertion.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
@raider6504 Having a public school system is actually a benefit to our society. It creates an educated working class that improves our economy and prevents jobs from being sent overseas where people might have access to cheaper/better education. If you were raised in the country, you probably grew up in the public school system, and your children will have the same benefit, so it's kind of ridiculous to claim you shouldn't owe taxes for it, unless you want to state you'd prefer to be uneducated.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish The public schools to a poor job of educating children. They force children to learn what the state decides they should learn rather than what the individual child wants to learn. They also stifle individuality and the ability to reason. Instead they promote conformity and simple memorization. Individuals are free to educate themselves if they are unable to afford private schooling, and they would be better off for it. There is also no accountability in the public school system...
raider6504 1 year ago
@raider6504 I can't really picture a 3rd grader with the capability to educate himself. Schools also offer technical training, and there's plenty of professional schools that already offer "apprenticeships". Regardless, I hardly think the fact that the government forces children to study math, science, and language makes a valid argument that the public schools do a poor job of educating children.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish They force children into conformity and require they waste valuable time learning subjects they aren't inclined towards or aren't interest in. Formal education has not always been the norm. Franklin and Einstein were both autodidacts and had they been forced to become "educated" in the subjects others thought they should learn it likely would have been a hinderance. Parents can teach that 3rd grader the basics of reading and writing...
raider6504 1 year ago
@raider6504 Well I think it's a stretch to say that just because a person isn't inclined towards....let's say... Math, they can't learn it and become proficient in the subject. Also, not all parents are capable/have the time to stay at home everyday and give their children a full education.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish The post directly below should go above. Sure SOME could become proficient, but most will not if they aren't inclined or motivated to do so. So why should they be forced to waste their time on such subjects? If a child discovers their passion in life requires a proficiency in math, than they can either attempt to master said subject or discover a new passion like writing, HIST, etc. All parent are not capable, but why are the children not accountable for their own education?
raider6504 1 year ago
@raider6504 I think it would be a mistake to make a 2nd grader accountable for their own education. Also, I don't see how telling a 2nd grader if they don't like basic math they don't need to learn it will lead to a better education system than we have now.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@raider6504 (continued) than the child and/or parent (depending on age/ability of child) should be able to decide what they are inclined towards. This is not only an attack on public schools, but the idea of schooling in general. How many 12 y/o's can get into a tech school if they choose? It's considered higher education and generally you have to be around 18 y/o. Why should children be discouraged from pursuing technical careers at younger ages? Also, by tech, I don't mean computer literacy.
raider6504 1 year ago
@thegreatfish (continued) Public schools get funding based upon their success rate and the scores on standardized tests. So most simply teach children the tests.
Lastly, education is not for everyone. Some children would be better off being able to apprentice with a mechanic, refrigerator repairman, electrician, chef, etc... Why should children be compelled to complete school if they are inclined to a technical field? Real world training is far more valuable than schooling for those kids.
raider6504 1 year ago
Also, without government, the cost of education would be lowered in the private sector. Competition not only effects quality of service, but costs as well. The citizens would have control over prices in the form of what worth they placed on education. You seem to only few private schools in the form of Catholic institutions,etc. This is completely irrational. Secular schools would have to answer only to their customers, they would teach what their customers wanted taught. Same concept but wo god
raider6504 2 years ago
Actually, without government regulation, private businesses could charge whatever they wanted.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
You have no grasp of economics apparently.
raider6504 2 years ago
@BlueFireWitch really?! are you sure you'd keep buying milk if they started to charge 10 dollars a gallon? there is nothing to prevent them from doing that, by your argument they would be charging this much already. But suppose they did... every single milk producer would have to raise prices at the same time. OK suppose that this somehow happened! I'm sure you would switch to something else, no one would pay that much. Please stop telling people things you do not know and do not understand!
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
@collapseofthedollar Actually she's correct on this point. Privatizing everything with voluntarism would create a monopoly on many public features. Take the highway system for example. If one corporation owns all the roads in a city, what will be your alternative source for travel if they decide to charge outrageous prices? You can move to a new city, or you can stay at home all the time. It doesn't sound like much of an alternative. Voluntarism has far too many flaws to be a realistic choice.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish Wrong. Government facilitates monopolies. There would be a minimal risk of monopolies developing in an Ancap system, but in most instances the free market would prevent it from happening. What would they gain if they priced the use of their roads to high? It is in a companies best interest to charge the highest price a majority of people are WILLING to pay to maximize profits. One company owning all roads is not likely, so other companies would undercut the higher prices.
raider6504 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@raider6504 "One company owning all roads is not likely, so other companies would undercut the higher prices"
I'm not sure how many roads you think people live on. I personally only have one road in front of my house. I don't know who you think I would turn to if someone decided to buy it and keep it for personal use.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish Sending you message in a few day because your premise is so flawed it will take more than 500 characters to explain.
raider6504 1 year ago
@thegreatfish lol monopoly on public features? lol dude ... lol... what the hell do you think government is...
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
@collapseofthedollar This is precisely my point. Why switch from one flawed system to a new system with the same flaw? It makes no sense.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish They think that somehow everything will just work out, private companies will somehow be perfectly regulated by customers, that private industry can be trusted implicitly, and that competition will somehow always make things better for the common good. They even imagine that corporations require governments to exist, not just because of the necessity of a stable economy and rule of law, but because they think companies need special government permission to form corporations.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
You'd end up with an uneducated lower class that would likely revolt against the rich.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
So because of the French Revolution, we should give welfare handouts to the poor so they won't revolt? Please, your justifications are illogical and you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the French Revolution. I suggest you educate yourself, clearly the public school system failed you, before entering into debates.
raider6504 2 years ago
That's what happened during the French Revolution.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
I never said Christian schoosl were the only alternative, Now you're grasping at straws, I specifically said commercial or religious indoctrination including private enterprises.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
You can't base your support on a flawed system based upon "possible" indoctrination. I'm not the one grasping at straws here. The free market is a far better deterrent against indoctrination than a government controlled school system. Sure indoctrination would still exist in the form of religion at Catholic schools, but their is very little evidence to support the secular indoctrination you suggest seeing as it would not be in the best interest of the private school owner.
raider6504 2 years ago
By the way, I had to edit this due to character count. The first sentence was in response to something I deleted w/o realizing. It is in reference to aquariums, zoos, and such. If people wanted them, someone would build them. Government isn't need to provide those things either. You assume everything government does is needed however, which is the major flaw in your premise found in the video above.
raider6504 2 years ago
I don't assume everythign governement does it needed. Yet, another grasping at strawman statement. I don't think we could survive without a unified force to protect us and history is on my side, ALl you have is blatant speculation.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
You are extremely naive.
raider6504 2 years ago
@raider6504 I actually think you're the one who's probably holding an untenable position. For starters, there's no way to have a voluntary system of government the way you describe it. Some things are necessary for every day life. I need access to roads to leave my home. As a result, I'm forced to pay whoever owns the roads, therefore, it's not voluntary, unless you actually believe never leaving your house is a viable option.
Perhaps you just don't realize how naive you actually are.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish Private roads are in fact a viable option. If you are interested in the idea of completely private roads you can read Dr. Walter Block's book, "The Privatization of Roads." I'm also not talking about voluntary government, I'm talking about NO government. Government is an UNnecessary evil.
LMAO, you have to eat as well and you are "forced" to buy your food from someone who produces it. What is wrong with paying for what you need? I many instances roads would be paid by businesses
raider6504 1 year ago
@raider6504 Yes, but I can get food from any number of manufacturers and vendors. There's only one road in front of my house. I have no choice but to pay taxes to use it and consent to the rules that govern it, so how is that any different from the taxes I'm paying now?
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish I will cover this as well in the message I send.
raider6504 1 year ago
@raider6504 I can't wait.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
IRSFraudExposed, do you pay taxes? I'm betting you do.
NonPC66 2 years ago
No, he hasn't.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
how did this country manage for so long without a federal income tax? how did the bridges and roads ever get paid for ?
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
It didn't manage. There were no roads, federal programs, etc. Take a history class.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
it wasnt until after 1913 that they set out to compel non government worker do pay this and in 1936 less than 4% filed returns. at no time prior to 1942 eight decades after it was introduced did more than 8% ever file returns in any given year. not until 1943 and the "victory tax " did it rise to 38%. wow we funded wars AND a whole flipping nation on 38% ... no roads though
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
That doesn't matter. The fact is we had taxes to pay for those things.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
This video isn't "pro" a specific type of taxes. Simply that taxes of some sort are necessary. So regardless of when taxes were made in effect. The fact is we need them. Hence, they were enacted. Things are a lot different now than then. So try taking away all federal funding, or even all state funding and see what happens. Total chaos, that's what. You can't have law and order without taxes. If you're not paying the government to do it, you'll pay a private organization to.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
And I personally think that's worse. Unlike the government where we vote in our representatives. A private organization does not answer to us.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
none put a gun to your head. did you sighn a w4 when u started your job? why ? its a contract, without it your not liable to the tax but you believe without it u cant work. lIES your a slave and you put the chains on yourself .
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
. A tariff is one form of an impost, which is of course one of the three kinds of indirect taxes authorized by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, for the government to lay and collect. However, as a tax on foreign activity or on the importation of goods from a foreign country, a tariff clearly is not, and cannot be, legally or lawfully applied to the domestic activities of American citizens.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
an elaborate system has been created which causes some people to whom the tax laws do not otherwise apply (maybe including you) to inadvertently declare themselves to be among the persons to whom those laws do apply.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
That income, wages, self-employment income, employee, employer and trade or business-- as these and certain other terms are used within, and in regard to, the tax law-- have narrow legal meanings exclusively involving, and applying to, certain privileged activities, such as holding or administering a government office, or working in one.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
Sorry, but that's impractical and irrelevant as my video was a response video to one other person and my arguments are very valid. You are simply butt hurt about living in society and realizing that nothing is for free.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Your comment makes no sense as laughingman was not part of the original argument and your comment is very childish. If you want anyone to grow up look in the mirror.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
@BlueFireWitch laughingman make a response to you video because you made so many fallacious arguments
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
If taxation is not forceful, then why must tax collecting bureaucracies purchase large quantities of weapons and ammunition? Since the scientific empirical definition of political state according to all legal theory is a monopoly on the usage of violence over a geographical territory, it is logically necessary to conclude that all laws and actions by the state can be traced to the usage of physical force. All practiced law is physical force, whether it be tax law or murder law.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
How about unjust taxes? The death tax? Why was that ever implemented? War tax? Spread the wealth, right? What founding father wrote this? "The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who would not"
They know more than you.
MrRemote1 2 years ago
you are fucking stupid . what commi dreamland are you living in ?
are you aware of the revolutionary war was about unfair taxation? "if you dont want to pay taxes leave" ... ? really just what tax are you talking about anyway ? there are tons of them .
are you aware that this country existed for hundreds of years without a income tax? write your congressman HA stupid you need to go you dont deserve to be hear your a salve anyway .
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
YOu are apparently fucking stupid because the revolutionary war folks who complained about taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION also taxed the people with the new government. Epic fail. LOL
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
what tax are you talking about ? the federal income tax is not a tax placed on all people for anything they earn. your ignorant of the how the tax works and go shooting your mouth off like an idiot. this was THE MOST ignorant rant ive heard in along time. you leave your the who doesnt understand how it works. typical stupid ass liberal dyke.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
Unfortunately, it is. Not sure what world you are living in. And this video is NOT about slavery, that's just a cop out to not talk about the issue.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Agreed.
themaiasaura 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Taxes must be a burden, but it is necessary. If we want good services, that is what needs to be done. The new possible health care system will also require this. I like the whole Island thing.
I am not sure about this, so feel free t correct me if I am wrong. I may not be certain, but if it is right, it fits to be said here.
In 1923 Germany tried printing money, and that lead to hyper inflation. This would probably be the only alternative to taxing, and that failed.
DahStranger 2 years ago
I am humbled my emperor.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Is that the best you can do? I guess we're done then.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
No, private school. I didn't insult you.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
You have a choice. Assuming of course you you dont have a criminal record. Which pretty much means you can leave IF, and only IF the state says you can leave. Wow Bluefire, stellar argument... honestly youve been owned so badly in this video I think you should probably just stop talking now.
Asilaydyingfan15 2 years ago 4
If you commit a felony, then you made your choice.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Yeah youre right. Clearly nothing can go wrong in a system where the state defines crimes and controls the ability for you to leave or not. You should probably go look up Japanese Americans, 1942 BFW, I bet theres a whole SHIT LOAD of them that would have liked to get the hell out of the states.... oh wait they couldnt, because being japanese was a crime at that time. Great argument, youre clearly well informed.
Asilaydyingfan15 2 years ago 3
And if you're sprung from prison you paid you're debt.
There's also requiring to have a passport and expatriation taxes.
Not to mention no other organization can legitimately use the social contract to "tax" people within a given area that the organization has little to no ties of labor or property to.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
And really that last part (to me) is the absolute essence of the problem. Government has zero legitimate claim to our labour. I find it funny BFW comes on here and says the United States requires taxes.... when the United States was founded by people that absolutely despised unfair taxation. They threw tea overboard because they thought taxing that was unfair, anyone want to take a stab about what they would do if forced to pay income tax....
Asilaydyingfan15 2 years ago 4
Yeah, and the sad thing is it lasted, what ,10 years? The whiskey Rebellion? Americans went from one group of thugs extorting them to another, just closer to home, and obviously they did not "consent" to be governed.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago 3
Obviously you cant or refuse to read what I wrote. I said ILL TELL YOU WHY and then proceded to give you an argument, I really don't have time for your petty bullshit and half assed arguments.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Not at all, that's a horrible argument and I'll tell you why. We have a choice to stay or leave. I gave a perfectly good plan to credible2 on how to leave and start his own country.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
did you watch laughingmans video? i think he gave a pretty thorough explanation of why the claims you made are wrong. do you agree yet?
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago 2
dont;' have time to watch bullshit, I know I'm right.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
"don't have time to watch bullshit, i know i'm right."? that can't seriously be your attitude. do you really think like that, or are you being sarcastic? maybe you watched his video and realized that you were wrong, but don't want to admit it. come on. do the right thing. everyone's wrong sometimes.
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago 4
No, I haven't watched it and I don't care to. Seriously have better things to do. I never intended on speaking to anyone except credible2 on this issue and I won't "take on" every anarchist nut that comes out of the woodwork. It's a downward spiral.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
in my opinion, laughingman did a better job defending the "anarchist" position you were arguing against, so it wouldn't hurt to address his points as well...
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago 3
No interest or time to explore the issue further.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
huh, i guess it's true what they say. "pagans are just as retarded and stubborn in their retarded positions as christians." :-P
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
Now you are blocked for hateful comments. This video has jack shit to do with my religion, which is why I don't want to focus on it. Thanks for proving yourself to be nothing more than a hater and a bigot.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
But there seems to be plenty of time to comment on Youtube, telling people you won't watch his video.
andyissemicool 2 years ago
10 seconds every few weeks? Yeah, that's plenty of time. I don't have time to have some idiot use the same cliches when I consider the matter to be closed. This was an A to B conversation.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Idiot using the same cliches? Coming from someone who apparently hasn't seen it, that seems a bit prejudicial?
andyissemicool 2 years ago
yeah, well judging from his audience, it seems pretty accurate. Also, pretty much anyone who argues that to live in modern society without needing taxes is pretty much a moron.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
....sigh, you don't seem to understand anything about anarchism.
andyissemicool 2 years ago
From my collegiate studies of political science and sociology, I realize that it's a utopian philosophy with no real world application usually left to zealots and dreamers.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Yes laughingman destroyed her video. It is easy to call something nutty and a waste of time. It is another to be able to make a counter argument. She knows very little about anarchism besides what you maybe learned in some compartive politics class which does a very shallow/shitty job.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago 8
*what she
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
someone was indoctrinated pretty well in 12th grade civics class.
Nofaris 2 years ago 2
Please cite some supreme court cases or the staute which makes it legal then BFW, and dont post the 16th amdemant, because we all know that has its problems.... you can say ---No its not---- all you like, i want legal proof.
Asilaydyingfan15 2 years ago
If the Supreme court refuses to hear a case, that is it's prerogative. Tariffs and excise taxes are explicitly authorized in the constitution itself. This does not change the coercive nature of them.
The second President put through a law that clearly defied the first amendment. the courts said it didn't. The time for us to wake up is long past due. I invite you to my channel, my newer videos all have many great resources for study in the description.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
BFW, Taxation in the United States is unconstitutional if you look into it properly.
brentoneccles 2 years ago
No, It's not.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Uh, yes it is. And there are researchers that have spent years and even decades of research proving this.
brentoneccles 2 years ago
hmm... Shes not the brightest crayon in the box.... I believe that Income tax is illegal, sales tax on the other hand is what pays for Federal mandates such as Police, Fire dept, roads, etc. I work hard and get 1/3 of my income stolen, and that money goes to paying off a debt of wars and a welfare state I don't support!
m19921992 2 years ago 2
isn't it funny how people just type insults? like that will discredit you. angering people means you're doing something right. keep up the great work.
ilovehowitis 2 years ago
yeah, they suck but they are entertaining.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Pay taxes or leave? HAHAHAHAH!!!!
Evidently your ideology is the same as any major mafia throughout history who has "owned" a town. Try not paying your taxes. If you refuse, you'll be detained. If you refuse, then yes, there will be a gun placed to your head to comply or die.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago 5
Sorry, but I cover that point in my latest video and it's ridiculous. It makes no sense. Watch and learn.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
I don't really care what's in your latest video. My comment was directed at the nonsense perpetrated in this video. You cannot learn from ignorance.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago 4
Then you are admittedly willfully ignorant.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
LaughingMan0X epically pwned this video!
DissolveTheState 2 years ago 7
agreed.
Radclifferules89 2 years ago 3
You've produced some very good videos, Bluefire Witch, but, alas, this is not one of them. You lost me pretty quickly on this one. While I agree that taxation is a necessary evil in an imperfect world, "If you don't like it, leave" is one of the most infuriatingly cliché (and simply infuriating) of thought-terminating arguments. Sophistic logic scattered through the rest of the speech only degraded your argument further.
Mysticdreamlight 2 years ago
Your "If you don't like it, leave" argument justifies every piece of violence in the history of the world. Do wives consent to being beaten if they don't leave, regardless of what dangers they face if they do? Do children consent to child abuse by not crawling away from their abuser? How about slaves? Did the Jews consent to the holocaust by not leaving Germany? Think your arguments through to their conclusion before you make them, because that one is pretty disgusting.
Stargazer5781 2 years ago 7
"taxation is a necessary evil"
In your video you say it isn't theft? Where does the evil come in, then?
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago 6
This video's absurd logic has been detonated by several responses. Take this down to keep what's left of your credibility and save some face.
devourage 2 years ago 3
Americans still get taxed even if they live abroad.
MrBr3w 2 years ago
Okay i wanted to add another supreme court case you can look up BFW. Go check out Stanton v. Baltic Mining company... ill quote directly from the verdict. ----The 16th Amendmant (which tried to allow for direct taxes) conferred no new powers of taxation--- there are exceptions to this, but for the most part if you do some research youll find that the average citizen working in private business or industry technicly doesnt have to pay income tax, as it is unconstitutional.
Asilaydyingfan15 2 years ago
physical, and thus its a direct tax because there is literally NOTHING you can do to avoid it... the supreme court has ruled on this several times (Pollock v Farmers) off the top of my head... you seem reasonably smart BFW, please do some research before you come on youtube and tell people that taxation is your citizenship, because honestly if you know US history, youd realise NOTHING could be further from the truth.
Asilaydyingfan15 2 years ago
Blue fire witch i wish you would be a bit more specific when you say taxes? Are you referring to government sales tax? income tax? goods tax? because the constitution does allow for direct taxes... which is to say that you can tax SOMETHING, be it tobacco or w/e... its called direct b/c you can avoid it (grow your own tobacco, dont smoke). Income tax however, is illegal and unconstitutional in that it is an indirect unapportioned tax, meaning you arent taxing ANYTHING.
Asilaydyingfan15 2 years ago
in case you can't fathom this ...this country was here long before the colonists arrived and there was the tribe.. no money.......imagine that? none of your precious money and fast food restaurants..the monetary system corrupts and is the source of most wars...save the bit about indians fought too...not the subject..they didn't try to own people and land.....they had reverance for nature.....your points don't negate what credible too said...THEY DO FORCE YOU...try not paying....they lock ya up
232323C 2 years ago
so i get to vote on who misallocates my resources which they systematically steal from me? well, i guess that's okay then. srsly. think about it. the reason you see no alternatives to statism is because you haven't looked into it enough. it's pounded into your head like a religion, from preschool to college to your job as a corporate slave, working for government granted monopolies.
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
you are paying for huge infrastructure and armed forces, and servicing inturnal debt.hospitals and schools. and mismanagement.its better to move away from the citys . and go bush but that costs money to.
moonuni 2 years ago
As a monopoly the state will try to maximize its profits. Presidents since they only have power for a short period of time have a high time preference and will try to change things which can harm society in the long term. The state is nothing more than a violent institution which came out of religion. To link civilization with statism is absurd.
Eldel15 2 years ago
Comment removed
Eldel15 2 years ago
Why not tax the islanders to provide them cars, clothes, food, entertainment? Why do you assume only some functions are available through a free market and others *must* be provided in a violent manner? This might be a good time to really honestly analyze assumptions youve been making for quite a long time.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Rebublic. Not a Democracy.
madcomputergirl 2 years ago
Chris I'm with you on this one. I believe in small government that focuses on basics and a strong military as you know. Without government at all society would break down. You make good points here.
alancook01 2 years ago
You fall for the typical statist trap of viewing the state as this all powerful & all knowing entity. In reality, it is simply an association of hand-picked people from that society.
With this said, what ultimately comes into play is the values of the people. When people don't adhere to the non-aggression principle (or voluntarism), than no matter how powerful the Government, it will not be able to tame the people (mostly because this valueless people will be the Government).
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 3
In short, Anarchism is actually more than simply anti-statism. Anarchism is purposing a whole new value system.
Once this is understood, many of your objections to anarchism (and thus anarchist values) are made invalid.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 2
South Africa is not anarchy. There are states.
"So what is going to stop a guy from breaking in to your house, killing you and rapping your wife? Your gun? Well what if there are 30 of the thugs?"
There are protection agencies. And society and the market would regulate behavior. The Government really doesn't protect you from these thugs, it comes after the fact and locks people in cages. You are 30x more likely to die from the Government than from a private citizen.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 4
The USA taxes its citizens mostly through inflation and not through income. It is a more clever way to extort.
luvbeingfree 2 years ago 3
Inflation? Nah, that's just the name of the game, the economy.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
Inflation is a hidden tax.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 2
actually when the government prints more money and creates the inflation, then the money we have is worth less and they have, in effect, taxed us.
alancook01 2 years ago 2
Can you really be that stupid? Are you just kidding?
Necessary evil? Evil is evil, dumbass! WAKE UP dummy!
Your an idiot 1 star
mpost81 2 years ago 2
There are no necessary evils. Taxation is synonymous with force just as the state is synonymous with violence.
mcphilthy 2 years ago 8
In your attempt to be condescending and patronizing, you shown yourself to be a real jackass. Your argument is baseless. I sincerely suggest you research before you open you yap.
Ignorance is not a defense.
TheBigHo111 2 years ago 5
It's one thing to open your mouth and insult, it's quite another to pose another side to the argument. I've yet to hear anything from you that sounds like an argument.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago
I wonder how this girl would feel about a telephone company, for instance, that started operating on a statist basis.
"I'm sorry, but you can't cancel our service anymore. You'll just have to move out of our range of service, or else continue to pay your regular fee."
Or what if me and some friends of mine did the same thing? Would that be alright?
"This isn't your home anymore. It belongs to me now. You can either do as I say, or leave your valuables at the door, or things will get ugly."
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago 3
Phone service is hardly the same thing. We're talking about the government, if you can find a competing alternative, go there, but as I said it's a necessary evil. not a luxury service with competing rivals like the phone company.
BlueFireWitch 2 years ago