Consent Every 10 minutes or it's Rape
I am really getting sick over the obsession of the progressives with all sorts of trivial garbage, while totally ignoring anything that is important.
I was reading this article that got promoted in many places and has outraged many communities, rightly so:
Of course this is nothing new, many feminist movements already talk about such nonsense too for some time. They are just obsessed with sexuality and consent, as if it were the biggest problem in the world.
So they are saying that if your sex partner, obviously talking about females here, does not consent every 10 minutes during an intercourse, then it's a rape. I have also read something similar somewhere else that consent does simply just mean the woman enjoying it, but she has to actively say yes every 10 minutes or so, or it other words it has to be opt-in not opt-out.
Voluntarism
Now don't get me wrong I am all for consent which is the fabric of a voluntary society. But this subject is just so ridiculous. What the hell does this matter? Do people really have this kind of problem in their romantic life? Because I don't. I'm happily married and my wife knows exactly what I am doing to her and she enjoys that, that is silent consent, but trust me it's not that "silent" if you know what I mean.
So I can't imagine anyone having this kind of problem either in their marriage life or in their dating life. I mean if a woman doesn't want it, she will just say no. But I can never imagine a situation where during an intercourse, it has to be stopped like after 2 minutes. What kind of nonsense is that?
And even if a situation like this were to arise, do your really think men are just animals. Do you think men can't see when a woman doesn't enjoy it, so they can stop or ask what to do better in that situation?
Fucking progressive idiots, they are just obsessed with bullshit all day long, while totally ignoring the big rape that is happening.
Taxes
Yeah let's talk about taxes shall we. Let's talk about the fact that the Government rapes us every single month with a 80% theft of our income. That is the biggest rape that is going out there and nobody talks about it.
Germany:
- Business Tax: 29.72 % profit + 19.33 % social security = 49.05%
- Personal Tax: 47.5 % income + 20.43 % social security + 19% sales tax = 86.93% tax
France:
- Business Tax: 33.3 % profit + 40.63 % % social security = 73.93%
- Personal Tax: 50.2 % income + 14.2 % social security + 20% sales tax = 84.4% tax
Italy:
- Business Tax: 31.4 % profit + 32.08 % % social security = 63.48%
- Personal Tax: 48.8 % income + 9.49 % social security + 22% sales tax = 80.29% tax
You name it, in most of Europe the tax levels are around 80% or above if you add them all together, including the inflation of the EUR, local taxes, and other forms of fees.
What the hell, I don't remember consenting to that? Did anyone ask my opinion about being extorted every single month? Does my opinion matter? Does your opinion matter?
Heck my income is raped every single month, and nobody asked for my consent.
I remember my first job, working for my uncle's friend I think at 16 or 17 in a summer vacation, part time. I remember I got paid 800 EUR gross, and I only got 350 EUR out of that. That was my first impression of how screwed up society is, of course I had plenty of negative experiences in school too, but really I think this is what opened my mind mostly.
I mean you can't ignore the fact that more than half of your income is stolen away, in all tax brackets. And then you preoccupy yourself with nonsense like described in that article, while totally ignoring this huge problem.
Hey I have an idea, why not make taxes consentual? Have you thought about that. I would really like to have the luxury of consenting whether I want or not for my money to be stolen. I think that would be a great idea.
Paradise Papers
Now add on top of that the Paradise Papers leak, together with the early Panama Papers and other leaks.
It really shows you that politicians don't pay taxes. Nobody who has any power really pays taxes. Nobody likes taxes. Everyone hates taxes.
So you might as well just abolish taxation as it is. It is a giant extortion scheme, everyone hates it, so there is absolutely no point in continuing this garbage economic system.
Let's make every Government spending element itemized, and consentual. Coercion is not the answer.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
Stop trying to equate taxation to things. Taxation is not rape and it is not theft. You choose to pay taxes by living in that country and getting a job, not to mention you have a say in choosing the representatives who determine taxation.
No one chooses to be raped and the mindfuck that goes along with sexual assault should not be trivialized by comparisons like this.
Paying taxes to live in and benefit from a society is no different than paying your landlord: https://steemit.com/anarchy/@telos/the-landlord-analogy
Oh so it's the old "you can always leave argument". Now let's put that into perspective.
So that is like saying it's not rape if the husband does it. I mean you have consented to marriage, so marital rape is not rape. Like in Middle Eastern countries, where the husband is allowed to rape his wife without even criticism.
So that is the same thing, and of course it's not true. Marital rape is just as immoral as any other form of it.
So equating the consent for living in a place is not equal to consenting to the theft that is being done in that place.
Plus equating taxation to violence is not an exageration. It is a fact. Taxes are violence. If taxes are not paid then violent police action and incarceration follows. These are violent events, the initiation of force used to subjugate somebody, and if that person doesn't comply then the violence can escalate up to lethal violence.
So taxes are on the same level of violence as rape is, and it's done on a much bigger level.
Except no, you're wrong. Did you read my other post? You're literally trying to force people to "house" you on your own terms rather than theirs.
Your poor attempt at a comparison to rape is just so wrong. By that logic even collecting rent is wrong.
You chose to live in the "building." You chose to get a job that pays taxable wages. You filled out paperwork consenting to the taxes when you took that job. You're literally the woman deciding she was raped the next day.
You're literally the guy making very poor, illogical arguments while trying to defend actual violations of consent and excusing physical violence against non-aggressive individuals. And then you're trying to feign outrage about how non-consent and physical aggression is being compared to rape...which is physical aggression against an individual who did not consent.
Here's the footage of Al Capone being arrested for tax evasion:
So much violence!
So...you don't actually understand what an arrest is, or what would happen if he decided to resist?
Let's see...are there any examples of what happens when people resist arrest? Do you think you can find any videos of that?
I've been arrested twice, so yeah I do have a basic understanding of what arrest is.
You mean if he initiated force against them?
As I suspected. You don't know what an "arrest" is, especially when it concerns "victimless crimes" such as taxation. We can throw in traffic violations, anti-drug enforcement, prostitution, and plenty of other laws as well...but since you don't understand the consent-aggressor argument, does it even matter?
No. Rent is consentual, we already agreed to it, and we have signed a contract. And furthermore there is an exit clause in every contract. Otherwise it's a slave bondage.
I have signed no contract to agree to taxation, and there is no exit clause. I could leave, but I need a passport (except if you are a middle eastern migrant flooding into europe) to do so.
So it kind of looks like I am a slave.
The "you can leave" argument is just a concession of the debate. It's what people say when they have no valid point and insist on defending coercion/violence. But even that argument proves to be incorrect.
Suppose you live on your farm and some people move to your area, then create a local government with their "majority rule." You don't like their new coercive taxation plan, so you move - even though you have neither an obligation to pay nor an obligation to leave.
You start a new farm outside of their assumed jurisdiction. Then some other people come along and create a "state" government with their "majority rule." You don't like their new coercive taxation plan, so you move - even though you have neither an obligation to pay nor an obligation to leave.
You are now outside of the assumed jurisdiction of both the local and state governments and start a new farm. Then some people come along and decide that they want to create a "national" or "federal" government with their "majority rule." You don't like their new coercive taxation plan, so you move yet again - even though you have neither an obligation to pay nor an obligation to leave.
You have now left the local, state, and national/federal governments and seek a new land or country in which you can live and just be a damn farmer selling your goods to other people. Then...along come some people who decide to create a global government with their "majority rule."
Where do you move?
Also - WHY are YOU the one who has to continue giving up your land and your life every time some other jackasses decide that you must comply with their demands? And how the hell does this become legitimized in any way whatsoever?
Yep.
Plus take the USA and Eritrea, where the income tax is based on citizenship not residency. So even if you leave, you still owe taxes to Big Brother.
Is your comment satire?
Except, it is very different. A few people even pointed out the illogical assumptions that you made in the post that you linked here. While your landlord may actually own the property that you rent from him, the government does not and cannot, except through acts of coercion.
You seem to have a hard time understanding the entire concept of consent. You apparently believe that the existence of a government means that all actions a government takes are implicitly supported by anyone living within the geographical boundaries of the state's arbitrarily defined borders, which would make all of their actions permissible...always. There's no actual need for explicit consent because the mere act of living inside "their" borders means that you have already given implicit consent - including to use coercion against yourself and others - which, of course, is bullshit.
Maybe your confusion lies with how you believe governments are created in the first place?
You mean all the people who defined ownership using the government's definition of property ownership, then had to back off when I pointed that out?
The only possible definitions of ownership are "might makes right" or "legally defined through government." The fact is a landlord only owns property because the government says he does. What a land owner really owns is a deed, a piece of paper saying he has the right to a certain plot of land.
If the government doesn't own the land because it was originally taken by force, neither does the landlord because he only owns it based on the governments say.
You seem to have a hard time understand the the entire concept of consent. you apparently believe that the existence of a landlord means that all actions a landlord takes are implicitly supported by anyone living within the boundries of the landlord's government defined borders.
See how that works? Now, you can argue that a landlord can't do anything he pleases and you'd be right. Although you'd be right because government sets laws as to how landlords can treat tenants.
Well, mine was created when a bunch of us fought off the old government and wrote up documents describing how to have a better government.
No. I mean the people who pointed out that the government doesn't actually "own" your land. They can't, other than by their own arbitrary "legal" claims of their taxing authority, which is something you have yet to comprehend.
So how is such a government created in the first place, if not by individuals with legitimate claims of self- and land-ownership? Without individual sovereignty and legitimate property claims, there can be no legitimate government that's created in order to defend such claims. Or are you pretending that government "authority" is just created via magic?
No, I don't. You're just writing nonsense. Your understanding of the Socratic method is also poor, apparently.
Not at all. You're creating a straw man. I never said that a landlord can "do as they please." They can do certain things with their property, so long as it does not violate the liberties of another individual, such as initiating force against them. A landlord-tenant agreement for property use is a contract and it's explicitly different from the government-citizen/subject relationship, which is essentially based on arbitrary authority and laws...and coercive/violent enforcement.
And what happened with those individuals who did not give their consent to the other individuals who appointed themselves as "representatives" who then created the new government? Was their non-consent magically converted to explicit consent? Is that how you think consent and contracts work?
If you can, please explain to me how creating a new government works. If you're going to use the Constitutional Convention in the U.S. as an example, tell me how that convention itself was based on the consent of all individuals living in the colonies.
Great parallel examples...
You have "laid it on the line" for us, side by side. It is so obvious, and yet so obviously overlooked and swept under the rug....
Could that possibly be because, whenever we attempt to "just say no," to resist - even a little - the state responds by hurting us?
😄😇😄
Well taxes are certainly not consentual, but most people just don't care.
Every ten minutes of intercourse...
So I only need to get consent on every third occasion?
Yeah that's a nice joke.
Here in The USSA, it is getting to the point where you need to get the women to sign a form saying she wants to have sex... and still, she can say the next day that she signed it under duress. And, you go to jail. Even if you have footage showing her enjoying it.
This is just women trying to control the narrative. They want all of the sexual power.
In The USSA men pay all of the taxes. (women receive more in payouts, then they collectively pay in taxes.) Again, it is about women controlling the narrative. Women want free abortions, and if they choose not to, the want free OBGYN, and then they want free maternity leave, followed by free day care...
But, of course, the politicians are eager to please, because no man in his right mind would ever say no to a woman. Plus, they get to skim all of that taxation.
You're forgetting all your MRA talking points. Women already have all the sexual power, remember?
Not yet, men are not strapped to the bed as mandatory "safe sex" yet.
And men still have to be found guilty in a court of law... or a star chamber.
Indeed this feminist nonsense is just part of the divide and conquer.
But you should not hate women for it, you should hate the feminists for it which is only a fraction of the woman population.
Most women that I know are certainly not like that, they are hard working and they are extorted just as much as men are. My wife works at a beauty salon, she sometimes takes multiple shifts, well not now, but in the past she did. If not for the damn taxes she'd only have to work 4 hours tops per day for the same money.
Feminism came out of this retarded progressive/Marxist camp, which is just a fraction of the woman population, mostly mentally ill or obese women fall prey to that.
Most women that I know are self respecting, and pretty decent. Not even young women are like that, although the rebellious nature of youth can certainly amplify that.
Yes, women wanting to be treated like equal human beings totally came out of Marxism.
Modern feminism is not about equality it's about female supremacy.
You can hardly consider modern feminism a left-wing movement, it has became ultra-right at this point.
Up to the point where they think men are all horrible creatures. Some magazines have even tried to justify that men are not even needed and women can just get artificially impregnated by 1 man.
A gender-based soft-eugenics movement at this point.
Most women that I know are not like this. Thank God. But there is a militant minority that is, especially in progressive circles.
The militant minority is not the entire group. All groups have a minority that take things to extremes, and judging an entire movement by the extreme example is ludicrous. Feminism is still about equality, and women still have a ways to go.
I take it by progressives you mean feminists, that's the only group really obsessed with rape to the point of irrationality.
No I mean the entire progressive spectrum, since this is not the only stupid idea they come up with, there are plenty of other nonsense floating around in those circles.
Hi @profitgenerator, have you read @larkenrose's post on why he went to jail? I am still working through the book that he has written, but the more I read the more I have to question the tax systems that exist...
No I didn't, it was something about taxes I think.
All of the US based Steemian should read it! No such ambiguity in the Australian Tax laws though :(
In a nutshell he couldn't find evidence that income tax for US citizens not generated outside the US should be taxable, and that the IRS is doing its best to keep it quiet (or something like that, I haven't finished his book yet).
I don't understand, what does it matter? I mean it doesn really matter , even if that is true, they could just change the law, so I really doubt they'd leave such a big typo as a loophole there....
Besides words realy mean nothing ,they could be reinterpreted, I even wrote an article about this some time ago.
Basically a tax code starts like this:
All individuals, who are resident of the country, have the following obligations...Ok so if I define myself as a pink elephant, does that mean that I don't have to pay taxes?
Of course not, it really comes down to coercion. So the text doesnt really matter, it is a threat of violence, and if we don't obey then we get kidnapped and caged.
Plus it's not you who interprets the law, but the judge, so whatever the judge determines, will be the truth. As long as judges are statists, which is forever (hint: the judiciary is the state), our legal opinions won't matter.
Now with juries, it would be interesting. Interestingly in Europe there are no juries, it's a bureaucreatic dictatorship of the EU.
It doesnt really matter how it's spinned, that is what it is.
He really went and did some digging though, and you have to if you were going to write a 500 page book about it while being incarcerated. I respect the fact that he didn't shirk at the thought of defending his beliefs in a non-aggressive manner - sort of like the Gandhi of IRS/US Tax system :p I'll have more to say once I finish reading the book.
Yes I understand, I just don't see how it matters.
The law is defined by judges, so their final word is the "truth". It doesnt matter what the text says, if the judge interprets it in an authoritarian way (which they will always do), then people have to obey that or risk getting kidnapped and caged.
There is no freedom in the State, not even freedom of thought.
What about here on Steemit? Freedom is a struggle and not a state of mind, I think that would be enlightenment :D