Consider this. Taking my money away by force is theft and using force to make me do stuff against my will is inherently evil and is enslaving.

The social scienes prove humans are cooperative and libertarianism doesn't contradict that.

In a libertarian society there will be cooperation, and a lot more free cooperation then there is today.

>>1817439
>implying you can into readin comprehension

How is it theft if the people voluntarily decided to give the money away?

>>1817465

So what happens to people who don't pay their tax?

Don't bother trying to argue with libertarians, OP.

They're all stuck in childish delusional fantasies about how the world works. They reject empirical evidence or any factual knowledge of the real world and reply with childish Rand pseudo philosophy.

>>1817439
Tough shit cry baby. Man up, stop whining.

>>1817439
Taxmoney is how you repay society for what have been given to you.

>Be born at public hospital
>Go to public school
>Drive on public roads
>Use public services

Government is stealing my money and giving nothing back!!!!

>>1817486
>>1817451
>>1817485
>>1817484

None of that sounds very voluntary to me. Sounds more like pay up or else.

>>1817470
They give the money away.

>Ok I will provide money for the government
>tax is due
>suddenly don't want to pay anymore

Way to go.

>>1817484

But that Marx, I'll tell you, was on to something.

>>1817486

So if I came to your house and mowed the lawn, without asking you, that gives me good cause to steal something from your house. I mean, it's only fair I get paid. Right?

>>1817510
Nice strawman. I'm not a follower of Marx or socialism.

>>1817506

OK, I vote for not paying tax. So I don't have to pay now?

>>1817486

>Implying people would have a problem with paying for those

The problem is when the bulk of your tax dollars goes to the Department of Defense, paying outlandish salaries and benefits for senators, and supporting bloated bureaucracies. It's not like you have any say on where your tax dollars are actually going.

Is it still theft when the government taxes me to fund the courts, police force, military and general government administration?

>No.


Is it theft when the government taxes me and gives that money to Australian automotive manufacturers because they can't be fucked competing with Japanese and South Korean car companies?

>Yes.

>>1817521

>Every snarky reply on the internet is a "strawman" or "ad hominem" because it's the only salve that can soothe my eternal butthurt

Take a break from /pol/ and do something productive.

>>1817498
No one claims that taxes is voluntarily, but it is forced to make sure that everyone contributes. If it was voluntary you would have people using the benefits such as public roads, but not contributing to paying for them.

>>1817519
The problem is that your argument is irrational, the government is not there to serve your personal needs, it is there to do what is best for the majority.

>>1817530
Tyranny of the majority.

>>1817535
I am not disputing the fact that taxmoney is wasted on unnecessary stuff, but there is a legitimate need for the government to collect taxes and use them on f.ex roads that benefits everyone.

>>1817542
>Australian automotive manufacturers
Australia makes cars?

Someone or something will control you. Humans are co-operative – for fuck sake, dogs, never mind more obvious examples like primates, are cooperate with each other and follow some social structure.

I'm starting to think that all the ALL TAX IS THEFT/ALL LAWS ARE SLAVERY "libertarians" are incredibly bad armchair philosophers, or just have some Aspergers-type disease.

Not to say that all libertarian ideals are necessarily bad (we'd have plenty of common ground in some areas), but they're not all good either. The ideals they're based on are a little flawed – trying to claim that we don't have some inherent responsibilities as citizens of our respective stats and that democracy shouldn't decide the nature of them, to name one.

I guess that's the problem with putting an allegiance to some strict all-encompassing political ideology, be that Communism, Nazism, socialism or libertarianism, and refusing to accept anything else.

I'm not trying to be mean or troll here, merely tell you how I feel. Trying to tell me more about libertarianism isn't going to change my mind, as I already feel familiar enough with it (or at least the brand of it found on /pol/).

>>1817563
Look, I'm sorry it's hard for libertarians to comprehend that there are different views besides Murray Rothbard and Joseph Stalin, but you're going to have to get your head out of your ass and get over yourself.

>>1817565

OP just told us all that taxes were voluntary. You either voluntarily pay them or you get fucked up by some government enforcers. So now you're saying they are not voluntary, but arbitrarily stolen by a bunch of assholes that call themselves 'the government'.

>>1817439
So you want the benefits of being a part of society but you don't want to pay your fair share?

>>1817571
Yes, but they're only made viable with a cash injection of close to $2 billion a year from the Federal Government. Thankfully they're considering winding it down in effort to run a budget surplus in the next few years.

>>1817589
>OP just told us all that taxes were voluntary.
No. OP said, "taxation isn't theft." Do you only see the world in high contrast?

>>1817590

No, I don't want the benifit of having my money stolen and being told what to do. I will pay what I consider to be fair, sure.

>>1817589
I am not OP and I don't see where OP claimed taxes are voluntarily, if he did he is just plain stupid.

Stolen? I said that taxes are used on something that benefits the society.
Even if libertarians would never admit it, everyone of them have benefitted from other peoples taxes.

>>1817610
Non-sequitur.

>>1817606

theft - In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

You have a better definition? I'm all ears.

>>1817588

Nice ad hominem

>>1817614
>Even if libertarians would never admit it, everyone of them have benefitted from other peoples taxes.

And we have also in some way benefitted from burglary.

A burglar will make money that he will spend,stimulating the economy.

>>1817621

>Do you want x?
No I don't want x.
>Non-sequitur.

>>1817626
>or consent
That's the problem with all the "taxation is theft" idiots. If you accept public services, and maintaining a residence within the territory you are, then you are giving implied consent to pay for it. They just refuse to consent *after* they've benefited merely on the grounds that their consent was not express.

>>1817486
Working the cotton fields is how you repay what has been given to you by your masters.

>Given free transportation to America funded by future owners.
>Wear clothing provided your master.
>Eat food given by your master.
>Take shelter in structures provided by your master on his land.

MY MASTER WORKS ME TOO HARD AND GIVES ME NOTHING IN RETURN!

>>1817647
Wrong. I asked if you refuse to pay for benefits your received and instead of responding to the question you posted a non-sequitur about "stolen money."

If you're going to fail you should do it less blatantly.

>>1817649

let me get this right. If I say no, I don't want to give you this money, I want to keep it, that means I consent to giving you the money? What does consent mean in your language?

>>1817667
>If I say no
Except the point is not about GIVING money but the OBLIGATION to pay for the services you benefited from, even if you don't appreciate them.

>>1817649
If a slave takes food from his master, does it mean he implicitly approves of his slavery?

>>1817645
Strawman.

I was born on a public hospital, my parents recieved money from the government to raise me. I went to a public school and recieved government scholarship when studying. When I got my drivers lisence I drove on public roads and when I was assulted I was helped by the taxpayer money funded police force and the person that assulted me as sentenced by a public court.

When I pay taxes I see it as a way of paying back the government for everything they have given me and without their help I would never have becomed what I am today.

>>1817663

I don't want your shitty 'services' and would rather keep my money.

>>1817677
>If a slave
Stopped reading here as for clear appeal to emotion.

>>1817614

>Even if libertarians would never admit it, everyone of them have benefitted from other peoples taxes.

The point isn't a continuation of the current system simply on the principle that we've used it therefore we're hypocrites if we try to undo it in order to make things, in our eyes, better. That's like suggesting that we need to maintain the Military-Industrial complex because we've all benefited from it some way (economically, through technology, etc.). Should the colonists have not unshackled themselves from British rule simply by the virtue of having benefited from Britain at some point?

>>1817678

You are welcome to voluntarily give as much as you like to the government. I don't care. I just don't want them to take my money by force.

>>1817685
Then you need to stop benefiting from the services the government provides you, ie. give up your citizenship and leave the territory. As long as you maintain a residence in the territory you gain the benefits of stability, security, etc. etc. etc. even if you refuse to acknowledge them.

>>1817705
Government would continue to function perfectly if taxation worked like bagels at work, right? Just give what you want and take as much as you want.

>>1817711

In a society of equals you have no right to tell anyone what they can and can't do. Nor do you have any right to take someone's money without asking.

>>1817730

Sounds fair enough to me.

>>1817730
>Just give what you want and take as much as you want.
The US actually tried that once and it failed miserably.

Also the government patently cannot work that way as they have the obligation to serve the needs of EVERYONE, not just those who affirmatively request it. Many those services have to be actuated 24/7 without holiday as they serve deterrent purpose, such as property alienability, contract law, criminal legislation, etc. etc. etc. All these little mechanisms working in the background and their execution enable the country to not only function but to grow. Look at the various countries that did not have simple things like a Recording Act to make it fairly clear who owns property and what kind of interest they have so that there is less uncertainty in realty.

>>1817766

>Government cannot work voluntarily

Sounds like a good argument against government.

>>1817741
>In a society of equals
Do you honestly believe society is "equal" or ever could be "equal"? That the fact that people are not equally strong or smart is irrelevant?

Pass that shit around. It must be some good shit you're smoking.

>>1817766

Before 1900 the British had no income tax and government consumed only 7% of gdp. That sounds like a much better, fairer system of government.

>>1817693
It's not an appeal to emotion. It's an analogy.

Ok,let's try something simple and more to your taste. If an Occupy Wall-steet protester buys clothing and uses electronic devices made from the corporations that dominate the market (often times through bad legislation), does that mean they approve of the corporations? Or if an employee uses his employers parking area after he has money taking out of his check to pay for it (regardless of whether or not he needs it), does it mean he condones it?

>>1817730

It would certainly whittle down all of the unnecessary matter.

We could get rid of income tax and still run the government on the budget we had during the Clinton years.

>>1817780
>Sounds like a good argument against government.
Only to idealogues.

>>1817788

So who is it that you think should be given special powers?

>>1817801
>It's not an appeal to emotion. It's an analogy.
Implying the two are mutually exclusive?

>does that mean they approve of the corporations?
Of course not. They have needs they are going to work to see met.

>does it mean he condones it?
Again, no. I don't see the analogy to the point about consent yet.

>>1817799
>Before 1900 the British had no income tax and government consumed only 7% of gdp.
Relevance to the point of "paying for what you want" taxation?

>>1817817
What special powers? You made a point based upon a rational impossibility and it seems you're trying to carry it on.

>>1817853

7% of gdp could be collected in tarifs on specific stuff, like narcotics. Then there would be no need to pay if you don't consume narcotics. Not an ideal system, but I could live with it.

>>1817864

The power to make up rules for everyone else. The power to take people's money away from them by force.

>>1817877
So there is no relevance. Thank for clearing up that you're posting a non sequitur.

>>1817678
But you're assuming that these things wouldn't exist without the government. Education is something that all parents want for their child and would be happy to pay for it. If public schools didn't exist, then the private sector would meet that demand. The fact that public schools DO exist, and can provide what seems to be a similar service for no direct cost to the parents, means that the profit-driven private school sector is simply not economically viable.

The only way private schools can compete is to offer such a high quality level of service, that it is really only affordable to those for whom cost is no object, which is exactly what has happened in any country with a large public schooling sector.

So, considering this, I wish that there had been no public education sector when I was growing up as I would have likely received a far better education and probably wouldn't suck so much at math as I do today, since there would be a strong incentive for the privately run school to actually ensure that I learnt something.

>>1817886

seems you learned a new word.

>>1817889

But how can you run a school or a hospital without the regulation number of window inspectors?

>>1817895
Do search in the thread for "non sequitur" and you'll learn how you've failed yet again. Now is your opportunity to put up a valid argument because another shitpost like this and I'll feel justified in not responding to your further posts.

>>1817913

Yeah, I often get people making non-points, like

>that was a non-sequitur

and expecting a paragraph with a detailed explaination of why they are complete fools. If you have a proper point to make, then make it. If not feel free to piss off.

>>1817842
>Of course not. They have needs they are going to work to see met.

Exactly, this is why, even though I think the Occupy movement has the wrong target, the argument against them that they use products from corporations is bullshit. But it's the same with government, though , just because we use things funded by them does not mean we consent to how it was made. The fact is, they have a monopoly on most of the things that they service because they can use force instead of having to persuade us...much the same as the politically connected corporations.

The same thing with the employee. He's has to pay for parking spot as part of employment even though he could take a bus or a bike to work, but since he's already made to pay, he might as well take advantage of it.

>>1817910
Jesus Christ, I never thought of that...

>>1817944
I did. I asked you to demonstrate how your post was relevant to the point and that you failed to do so. It seems you believe it is relevant but refuse to demonstrate how and that I should take it on faith that it is relevant even though it is clear to me that it is not. So you need to get over yourself and carry your part of the discussion.

>>1817991
>Exactly, this is why, even though I think the Occupy movement has the wrong target
You're going off topic.


>use things funded by them does not mean we consent to how it was made.
Except the point is not consent about HOW IT IS MADE but consent to the services provided by government and the reciprocal obligation to pay for those services.

>The fact is, they have a monopoly on most of the things that they service
What government does not have a monopoly on the creation of laws, execution of them, etc. etc. etc? Are you trying to set up an unrealistic standard?

>He's has to pay for parking spot as part of employment
But the employ has meaningful alternatives. Just because his other options are not as enticing does not mean he does not give his consent to continued employment and the reciprocal obligations.

I think you don't understand what "consent" entails. Go read up on the doctrine of Duress, specifically the part about "no meaningful alternative."

>>1818017

>Government could only collect a few tarifs and not collect tax then you wouldn't need to pay tax.
>That has nothing to do with not having to pay tax

you don't actually have a point, do you?

>>1818094
>That has nothing to do with not having to pay tax
I made no truck about not having to pay taxes but that a VOLUNTARY SYSTEM OF TAXATION does not work and has proven in history to fail. Did you lose track of the point or just fail at basic reading comprehension? This is the third and last time I'm going to bring up the point for you to get back on it.

>>1818108
>I made no truck about not having to pay taxes
Okay, not exactly true, but I made no truck on not having to pay taxes in regards to the failure of previous attempts at voluntary taxation.

>>1818108

>I made no truck about not having to pay taxes but that a VOLUNTARY SYSTEM OF TAXATION does not work and has proven in history to fail.

We have gone from all taxes are voluntary to voluntary systems of taxes fail.

Surely if people want these fantastic government services they will pay for them voluntarily. They are happy to pay their 'fair share'. Am I wrong?

>>1818055
>Except the point is not consent about HOW IT IS MADE

When I say "How it's made" I mean the initial theft to fund the projects/services.

>What government does not have a monopoly on the creation of laws,

Irrelevant unless people are given the chance to opt out. What I'm saying is they have a monopoly that private roads and other things are hard to come by because the government already offers these things for "free," they own resources such as land, they have otherwise distorted the market, or they out and out do not allow any competition. I fail to see what unrealistic standard you are referring to. Hell, I fail to see how governments don't have a monopoly on legislation and enforcement, unless you mean between the different states (and occasionally between different levels of government) in the US.

The empolyee thing is a bit off because he can simply quit his job, and I didn't mean it to be implied that he was literally forced to pay.

I've never voted for any of the taxes imposed on me.

You don't get it OP.

The 'coercion' argument is a smokescreen. Libertarians just don't want to pay tax, they don't want other people spending their money - they believe they are the only authority that should matter on how and when their money is spent. In their perfect world, they would only pay for services they themselves benefited from in some form, and only if it came from a private source, because only the government is capable of 'coercing' their money from their wallets.

To any person not ideologically disposed towards utter faith in individual reason and market forces, this presents a considerable number of issues - none of which have any bearing on Libertarians, and argue otherwise they'll just bleat about liberty (or their version of it at least).

>>1818164
>We have gone from all taxes are voluntary to voluntary systems of taxes fail.
Yes, and my post about voluntary systems being impracticable undermines any claims that taxes should be voluntary. I assumed you were trying to refute the point instead of just ignoring it like a retard and acting on the belief that simple repetition will make a false point magically less false.

>Surely if people want these fantastic government services they will pay for them voluntarily.
Presumes people have perfect knowledge of what the government provides *and* that they aren't going to engender a sense of entitlement.

>>1818199
>I mean the initial theft
So now your delusion extends to corporations who put up their own money to get into business producing stuff people want to buy.

>Irrelevant unless people are given the chance to opt out.
People *ARE* given the choice to opt out. You can give up your citizenship and leave the territory. It is not a very enticing option but it is a meaningful option.

>What I'm saying is they have a monopoly that private roads and other things are hard to come by because the government already offers these things for "free,"
Because corporations have historically demonstrated they freely and easily get into non-productive fields, like building railroad networks across the continental US? Or going into space? Without government intervention or encouragement via subsidies?

You sir are clearly too focused on your ideology to factor in history.

>>1818185

>the government has the obligation to meet the needs of everyone.

This is your big mistake. Government does not owe you a living. It is just a small group of people that wield extraordianry power.

There are a very few essential functions government performs. Police and military, for example. These could be performed with a tiny fraction of the budget governments currently consume. If government did not provide other services, such as diversity outreach coordination, it could be paid for with a few tarifs. This would mean taxes would not need to be levyed on the majority of people.

What about the oppressed voting minority? What if 50% plus 1 decide to abuse the other 50% minus 1?

>>1818210

>Yes, and my post about voluntary systems being impracticable undermines any claims that taxes should be voluntary. I assumed you were trying to refute the point instead of just ignoring it like a retard and acting on the belief that simple repetition will make a false point magically less false.

This takes us right back to the start. Taxes can not be voluntary, as you have shown. Taxes are, in fact, the taking of someone's possessions against their will. So taxes are theft.

>>1818243
>Government does not owe you a living.
Never claimed that it did. You don't need to have a living, you need food, shelter, water, air and basic health services to combat the occasional threat to surviving. The government DOES owe you enough so that you can survive. But if you want to do more than merely survive, then you're going to want to find some means of income to provide doing so.

>There are a very few essential functions government performs.
So courts are not an "essential function?" Providing the means for a stable economic system, ie. execution of contract laws, are not an "essential function?" Providing for an educated populace to do more than simple physical labor is not an "essential function?" To maintain safe living standards, ie. construction regulations and zoning laws, are not an "essential function?"

You perfectly exemplify the false presumption of "perfect knowledge" of governmental services.

>>1818288
>Taxes can not be voluntary
No, a voluntary taxation system is not practicable. There is a nuance that you either can't or refuse to acknowledge.

>So taxes are theft.
And considering your high contrast view of reality I'm not surprised.
False dichotomy.

>>1818269
If it is abuse, then the voice of the minority is protected so that they can make the abuse known and convince part of the majority to change sides and end the abuse.

>>1818289

My list of government functions was not exlusive. Courts should not and are not paid for by taxation. They are paid for by the people using the courts, in the form of fees.

most of the functions of government should also be paid for in the same way. People who want to use the service provided can pay for it voluntarily. People who don't want it should not have to pay.

>>1817426
>taxation isn't theft and government is not inherently evil and tries to enslave you.
Taxation is always inherently theft

if you suffer form stockholm syndrome, doesnt make it less theft
And democracy is always trying to tell others how to live their lives

in before people spew durr murder rape shit for the entire thread

>>1818304

Taxes fit within the definition of theft. A common definition of theft might be

'taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.'

Taxation fits that descrition, doesn't it?

>>1818322
>My list of government functions was not exlusive.
It was sufficiently prescriptive to demonstrate you don't know what you're posting about.

>Courts should not and are not paid for by taxation.
>are not paid for by taxation
Especially when you post such clearly delusional stuff like this. You seem to be functioning under the assumption the courts get enough from the various fees that they aren't subsidized by government. Let alone ignorant of the entire appeals process.

Stopped reading here.

>>1818344
>Taxes fit within the definition of theft.
Except for the whole OBLIGATION point brought up previously.

>>1818322
Ah the good old Justice for the Rich idea... I like. So the poor can not take anyone to court as they can not risk getting made bankrupt by the legal system and the rich can take your house cause they can through money and lawyers at a case.

>>1818338
Start here and work your way down. >>1817486

>>1818237
>So now your delusion extends to corporations
What? I was talking about governments and taxation. The beef I have with corporations are that they get in bed with government, but it's more of a chicken-egg problem since some parts of the market require cronyism to be successful...but that's all off topic; I was only referring to government.

"You can give up your citizenship and leave the territory."
And what? go to lands run by other mob bosses? Do you extent your "love it or leave it" jingoism to parts of the government you disapprove of? Do you, when you vote and lose, say "ok" and wait for the next election in hopes that you will win next time no matter how bad things are?

>Because corporations have historically demonstrated

Yea, they've historically demonstrated they can get people to do unproductive things like having railroad companies crisscross the country for no reason, build roads that cause urban sprawl and require everyone to have a vehicle to get anywhere, and be guilty of homicidal negligence when it comes to sending humans into space (private companies are now going into space btw)

>>1818344
so a bank loan is theft too then. They force you to give them your money every month and if you don't the bailiffs come round. same thing.

>>1818387
You volunteered for the loan. Your great-great grandparents didn't take it, fail to pay it, and then require you to pay your "fair share."

Though yes, I think children having to pay loans by dead parents is theft.

>>1818380
son, if you aint trolling i cant even begin to talk to you
brb talking about shit that i had no choice in, and then talking about roads which are a monopoly

if laws come around that all air is gov owned and government benevolently "cleans" it for you
do you owe each breathe to government now? thats what your retard level arguments about roads and other monopoly gov services come down to, and if u aint trolling and cant even consider this then your brains is lower than that of someone with autism on top of downs syndrome

>>1818352

OK, maybe some cases are brought by the government who then pays the court. This is included in the cost of policing. Prisons should also be considered part of the cost of policing. I'll allow that, as I'm being generous.

But courts are not generally paid for by taxation. They charge a fee to people who use the court.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that taxes are theft.

>>1818387
>>1818418
Also, bailiff's don't come 'round anymore. Whatever you put up for collateral is taken, and your credit score drops.

>>1818387

bailiffs are agents of the court. courts enforce contracts. a contract is an agreement. if you agreed to the terms of the contract it can not be called theft, can it?

>>1818386
>What? I was talking about governments and taxation.
I'd suggest you use some sort of indicator language then because the "how it's made" was explicitly in reference to OWS-Corporation point in the previous post.

>And what?
And nothing. I expressly posted that it isn't an enticing option but it is a meaningful alternative. If you consider the costs continuing to consent to the current government, then you have the option to stop consenting and try to find a government that is more to your liking (provided they'll accept you but that isn't the current government's responsibility).

>they've historically demonstrated they can get people to do unproductive things like having railroad companies crisscross the country for no reason
So the train network of the 19th century was for "no reason," huh? Are you in denial or into full blown delusion?

>build roads that cause urban sprawl
Because the interstate network was not for military and economic transportation means, amirite? Go read up on the Federal Highway Act of 1956.

>>1818418
and you volunteered to be a part of this society. You have to pay your dues. Just like when you join any club. You can go to an other country if you don't like it, or lobby to change the system in this one, but to live in the society you have to live by the agreed rules and pay the agreed charges.

>>1818423
>son
Stopped reading here. If you expect anyone to take you seriously you're going to have act like a grown up, not merely attempting to appear as such.

>>1818466

I did not volunteer to be a part of any society. That is the point.

>>1818428
>OK, maybe some cases are brought by the government
Thank you for proving your ignorance some more. More than 90% of all cases are settled out of court before getting to the trial phase.

>This is included in the cost of policing.
More ignorance.
Execution of decisions and settlements is an entirely different area of law *and* government. The execution is part of the Executive (funny that, huh?) branch and the courts are a part of the Judiciary.

>Prisons should also be considered part of the cost of policing.
FYI, since you seem quite serious in trying too hard, prisons, or the more accurate terminology, the department of corrections, is a part of the executive branch and is part of the same bureaucracy that enforcement falls under, though there might be some strange states (like Texas for instance) that might have different procedures.

>I'll allow that, as I'm being generous.
You'll allow reality to be real? Delusional.

>But courts are not generally paid for by taxation.
Since you seem to want to ignore reality, let me just POP that back in for a bit and post:
[citation needed]

>>1818495
>I live here with all these other people but I'm not a part of here with all these other people
Delusional

>>1818495
yes you did. You used the services that the government provided before you had paid in enough tax to make up for what you were using. you had the insurance that if something really bad happened society had your back. You could have left for Sweden, Somalia or Singapore but you didn't. You are just complaining cause you do not like the deal you signed up to. Just like those that have a loan and the interest spikes.

>>1818532

I see, You lost the argument on taxation and now are trying to score points in another argument. Making you look silly is getting boring.

First, cases settled outside of court are not settled in court, so do not cost the court time and money.

Second the judicury, police and prisons can easily be considered part of the same budget. Not sure what 'point' you were trying to make.

Can't make out what you are talking about with your next pile of drivel, either. Prisons can't be paid from the budget as police because....

>prisons, or the more accurate terminology, the department of corrections, is a part of the executive branch and is part of the same bureaucracy that enforcement falls under, though there might be some strange states (like Texas for instance) that might have different procedures.

Yeah, no.

>>1818551

Nope, I did not agree to anything. You are trying to provide a service I did not ask for, then claim I owe money for it. Without agreement there is not contract.

>>1818469
>trolling hard entire thread
>ignoring serious arguments because of stylistic preferences

please die

>>1818601
>You lost the argument on taxation
And more ignorance, only this time willfully done so it's denial this time.

>cases settled outside of court are not settled in court
Herp

>so do not cost the court time and money.
Because the clerks didn't file the complaint, ensure proper and timely service, didn't go through the various costs in interrogatories, depositions, etc. or the entire pleading phase and all the corollary motions.
Derp

>Second the judicury, police and prisons can easily be considered part of the same budget.
Just like the President, Congress and Supreme Court can easily be considered part of the same budget but different branches? Herp Derp.

>Can't make out what you are talking about with your next pile of drivel, either
If you can't see how your ignorance undermines your position . . . well, enjoy your bliss.

>Yeah, no.
Derp Herp
http://omb.alaska.gov/ombfiles/12_budget/DOC/Proposed/rdu271.pdf
Up here in Alaska, the State troopers and the Department of Corrections are part of the budget for the Department of Public Safety. If you have evidence that other states do it differently here's you opportunity to provide some support to your claim.

>>1818620
>>1818620
Look i don't want to pay rent on my house. but if i don't i'm out. Now i believe this is what should happen to people that do not pay taxes, not just put in jail but good old exile. But must government in their infinite mercy do not exile you and just shove you in jail for a while. That is a lot nicer don't you agree. You have to pay your dues... it is that simple. You want to be part of our society, Pay your share, if not? Fuck off.

>>1818622
>trolling hard entire thread
That's two shitposts. Thank you for justifying not responding to any further posts as you clearly have no wish to be taken seriously.

>The only reason libertarians view this process as theft and coercion because in their ideology, people are atomised and isolated individuals.

Not exactly.

If 51% of the majority decides that everyone should have free cars, and levy a tax on 100% of the population.

If I refuse to pay the tax, there will inevitably be the use of force to get me to pay the tax.

Here is a video on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs&feature=related

>brb talking about shit that i had no choice in, and then talking about roads which are a monopoly

>if laws come around that all air is gov owned and government benevolently "cleans" it for you
do you owe each breathe to government now? thats what your retard level arguments about roads and other monopoly gov services come down to

>>1818865
>do you owe each breathe to government now?
No, the government owes you sufficiently clean air to breath. They have no choice but to ensure the air you breath is not going to harm you. But the means to fulfill that obligation, like all the other obligations the government is burden with, isn't without cost and the cost is defray among the citizens.

>>1818900
>>1818900
Implying I can't get clean air without government.
Implying I have no choice in the matter when the inevitable world government arrives.