Francisco Ferrer

(shrug) Neither is taxation, which is just another cost of business written off by inclusion in the price charged for goods and services. And since the price of government is built into the price of every product and service every consumer pays. The only way to buy your freedom is to become a producer. Then there's always parity between the cost of goods and services you sell, and the price of goods and services you buy. Wealth is accumulated simply by producing more than what is consumed. If you actually produced anything useful you'd know this because it's common knowledge to any responsible producer. But you're not, so you don't. Greg What you appear to be incapable of understanding is that taxation cannot in every case be shifted forward without lost sales, lost revenues and lost jobs. This is an economic reality widely recognized--with the possible exception of politicians and advocates of bigger government. A classic example is what happened to the U.S. economy in the 1990's when Congress re-imposed the luxury tax. George Will explains: In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it? According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. Taxation is a form of crime, no different in character than burglary, larceny or armed robbery. The fact that it is performed by a democratically elected official does not change its nature in the least. People who care about liberty focus on how to reduce rights violations, not how to pass them on to someone else. And, by the way, regarding your statement in Post #103 that "people who complain the government is robbing them . . . are robbing someone else": Prove it.

How would a soldier in the U.S. Army cover higher taxes by raising his "prices"?

Your response does not address the point that prices are not infinitely elastic. As I explained to you months ago, if all taxes could just be passed forward, the U.S. could retire the debt in one year just by raising tax rates accordingly. To put it another way, there is no such thing as a free lunch. High taxes (and inflation, which is a form of taxation) take a toll on a society's prosperity, productivity and (eventually) stability. Ancient Rome, Peron's Argentina and Zimbabwe are just a few examples. The playing field will not be level until all forms of theft are criminalized. You know nothing about my business affairs and apparently even less about economics. What you appear to be quite good at, however, is evading any responsibility to prove your accusation in Post #103 that "people who complain the government is robbing them . . . are robbing someone else."

the canine and bicuspid dentatation enables human to chew and tear flesh. It does not dictate their diet. Now we have an answer to your question of Post #3. Your question: By nature herbivores? How does he explain the canine teeth and bicuspids in human dentation[?] Your answer: The canine and bicuspid dentatation enables human to chew and tear flesh. It does not dictate their diet.

Of course they do... because the cost of theft is built into every product they sell. I do well despite government taxation because it is already factored into the cost of every product and service I sell. And that's why I don't complain of being robbed like you do. I don't regard myself as a victim like you do, because i don't make myself a victim like you do. Your victimhood is self inflicted. You'll never see that as long as you need something else, like the government, to blame (unjustly accuse) for your own moral failure. Face it Frank. Because we each live by completely different standards, our two views will always be irreconcilable... and that will never change. So have a nice day. Greg A retailer cannot raise prices to cover losses from theft without affecting sales and thus his own bottom line. If Store A raises prices to cover a $10,000 theft and Store B, which had no theft, keeps its prices the same, customers will quickly abandon A for B. I have previously exposed your fallacious logic in contending that taxes can be covered through price increases. If, for example, the federal government doubles the taxes on automobiles, car makers cannot add another $5,000 to every vehicle without affecting total sales volume and thus the car makers' bottom line. This is simple economics, to which you appear to be fiercely resistant. Other than automakers, there are millions of Americans who are financially dependent on income that cannot be adjusted with a quick price mark up. Crowing about how little taxation affects you is the equivalent of a Catholic in Mary Tudor's England bragging about how little he is affected by the burning of Protestant heretics. If, as you claim, my "victimhood is self-inflicted," then provide details of what I did to bring about the federal excise tax on gasoline. But you can work on that after you have submitted some evidence for your accusation in Post #103 that "people who complain the government is robbing them . . . are robbing someone else." Why not start with Ayn Rand? She recognized that taxation is robbery: "the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force." So whom, exactly, did Ayn Rand rob?

The 80% can only loot their own kind who also have no moral scruples. Greg "The top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes," If, as you say, "the 80% can only loot their own kind," then the top 20% would not be paying 86.3%. ...and yet successful American producers keep getting richer, while unproductive government benefits dependent failures keep crying "income inequality". There always exceptions, but they do not invalidate the principle that those who are successful in business are ethical and deal with their own kind, while the failures aren't, and they also deal with their own kind as they deserve. I refuse to do business with people who complain the government is robbing them... ...because that means that they are robbing someone else. I would never do business with you. Greg There are retailers who do well despite theft by shoplifters. Like some high income earners whose wealth increases despite government looting, some retailers manage to increase net revenues despite criminals who take something for nothing. But without looting, high income earners and retailers would be richer still. When I have a choice, I refuse to do business with people, like Harry Reid, who say taxation is voluntary. Now to examine the statement "people who complain the government is robbing them ... means that they are robbing someone else." Generally, in civilized societies, accusations of criminality are backed up with evidence. If not, the accuser is regarded as "bearing false witness." So where is your evidence, Morrie?

The best way to banish ignorance is to present facts to the contrary. The best way to dispel bad logic is with good logic. However, your statement about nipples being "a cheaper way to make a male dog--or a man--to make sure the females get theirs for nursing" in no way undermines my argument: Canine teeth in humans prove that humans must be meat eaters? Not any more so than nipples in male dogs prove that male dogs must nurse puppies. Why a person would argue with someone with whom he mostly agrees is indeed a wonder. That is why I am still marveling at your Post #8.

The 80% can only loot their own kind who also have no moral scruples. Greg You're not following what was said earlier. "The top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes," If, as you say, "the 80% can only loot their own kind," then the top 20% would not be paying 86.3%. One can observe the world--or one can close his eyes and make a wish.

Then we may conclude that certain anatomical features exist not to perform particular tasks required for the survival of the species but as evolutionary vestiges. Thus the existence of canine teeth in humans proves that humans must be meat eaters to the same degree that nipples in male dogs prove that male dogs must nurse puppies.

If anatomy dictates function, why do male dogs have nipples? An analogy too far. Too far? If an anatomical feature of a member of a species exists only because it performs a specific task, then it is fair to ask just what that task is. Men and chimpanzees both have pointed, conical teeth. Why? Male and female dogs both have nipples. Why? If form indeed follows function in biology, the second question is just as pertinent as the first.

If anatomy dictates function, why do male dogs have nipples?

In the 19th century office, employees typically worked on their feet: See also any production of A Christmas Carol. Why the change? Managers found it easier to supervise and control people in a sitting position.

I think that the statement would more comparably be that in exchange for having a nibble of his own tail, the mice get to feast (relative feast based on their size) on the skin of an elephant. I don't disagree with your other information though Francisco but it brings up a different question/issue one that maybe I should start a different thread for- In the instance that taxes were completely obliterated, which means all re-distributions from from the 20%, what is the defense against the inevitable violent revolution that would take place? Not that this uprising would be condoned by me but history has shown quite clearly that when one group gets richer, even if it is by law or honest practices, the other group (the majority) gets jealous and pissed off. The morality of keeping your portion of taxes might fail in the face of a mob at your front steps. Especially if the police feel that they are wronged as well. If the 80% have no moral scruples against looting the 20%, the looters will win in the long run. A social order depends ultimately on the support or acquiescence of the majority. That is the reason a libertarian political revolution can come only after a philosophical revolution.

Somewhere between 43 and 47 percent of Americans do not pay income tax. Yet about 60% of eligible Americans vote. It would be fair to say that those who don't pay taxes are not necessarily the ones not voting. More importantly, Americans do not pay taxes in equal amounts. The top 20% of earners pay 84% of income taxes. Thus in exchange for having to nibble a bit of his own tail, the wolf gets to feast on a platter of lamb chops.

You are correct.

from Nick Gillespie

2:21: "The Illuminati, the most wealthy, rich men on the face of the planet, always telegraph everything that they're going to do." Thanks, JTS. It's been a while since we heard from the Boys from Bavaria.

From the video: "The sex workers admire any woman who can take a man from an oppressive culture and make him bend to her will."

Rand personally chose one of these pretty good people to be her legal heir.

It didn't help to surround herself with a circle of callow Neanderthals.

If radical feminists are responsible for every broken urinal in America, their numbers are legion.

Let "Trumps another right" = A Let "No right was trumped" = Non-A Thus if "Trumps another right means no right was trumped," A = Non-A. If Homeowner A's killing of Intruder B for breaking and entering is a forfeiture of the right to exercise or use rights, how would A's killing of Intruder B for breaking and entering as a forfeiture of rights be any different in character or outcome? This appears to be a distinction without a difference.

The statement "My right to self defense trumps someone's right to assault me" is self-contradictory. There cannot be both a right to ownership of one's body and one's goods and a right for another person to initiate force to deprive the first person of any part of that body or goods. The "right" to assault is null and void. For such a right to be granted, we would have to dispense with the right of any peaceful person to hold on to his living body and his worldly possessions. The homeowner's right, i.e. his entitlement, to use lethal force to take out an immediate threat to life and property does not simply "trump" or outrank the assailant's right to be there. By inserting himself uninvited and in a threatening manner into another's home, the invader has no rights; he has abandoned any pretense of rights. He has, in short, forfeited any claim to his present state of health or even continued existence on earth. The forfeiting of rights does not entail dehumanization, debasement, or cruel and unusual punishment for rights violators. As I have said earlier in the thread, justice requires that the self-defense response be appropriate to the threat and that in a court of law the punishment fit the crime.

I gather that you'll load your arms with low-caliber, non-forfeit ammunition so that no one is deprived of a right as a penalty for wrongdoing.

Let's imagine two societies with different legal systems. In Society X, through an act of aggression a person may forfeit a right or several rights. In Society Y, through an act of aggression a person may never forfeit a right, any right. The aggressor would forfeit only the right to exercise a right or several rights. Now let's put the different theories into action. In Society X, a man enters a home in the middle of the night by breaking into a window. The frightened homeowner fires a .45 caliber bullet which leaves a very large hole in the trespasser's chest and causes instant death. Since the intruder has committed the crime of breaking and entering, he may be considered an aggressor and thus he forfeits his right over his own body. The homeowner is judged to have acted rightfully under Society X's laws. By contrast in Society Y, one never forfeits rights. Thus when a man enters a home in the middle of the night by breaking into a window, the frightened homeowner can do nothing to cause the man to forfeit his right over his body or his right to allow his body to keep functioning naturally with a working heart, lungs and other organs. The homeowner is allowed only to act in a way that would merely take away the intruder's ability to exercise (some) rights. The homeowner can suspend or deactivate the intruder's right to exercise control over his living body, but may not under any circumstances take away his living body and thus his right to it. Thus, in Society Y, in order to avoid being charged with causing someone to forfeit his rights, private citizens get rid of guns and other lethal weapons. Instead they purchase Star Trek Phasers®, which have had the kill setting disabled and can perform only the stun function. In this way does Civilization banish the "dehumanization" and "debasement" of evil doers.