Dutch Libertarian explains why taxation is theft and shuts up socialist MP
Toine Manders, a Dutch Libertarian and former chairman of the Dutch Libertarian Party, has helped hundreds of small businesses to evade being robbed by the state. He also helped many young men from military conscription, which is still implemented in the Netherlands.
In this hearing, Manders is forced to answer questions that might incriminate him (he has a court case going because he was named in the Panama Papers). The interrogators, who are all from left-leaning parties, try to lecture him on how taxes work, which had nothing to do with the hearing by the way. Unfortunately for them, Manders has done his homework and gives a flawless speech to explain what taxation is: nothing more than legalized robbery. What you don't see in this video, is that the woman who posed the questions angrily shuts off her microphone because she didn't have an answer to Manders's great little speech.
Enjoy the video!
--> Click here if you want a cool banner like mine!
--> Previous post: The Best Argument for Free Markets
► Watch on DTube
► Watch Source (IPFS)
Taxation is theft!
(Someone had to post it) haha
Are you crazy? Who will build the roads?
(Someone had to post this also) :)
Muh roooooaads! haha
Thanks for mentioning it, haha. I didn't have enough room to include it in the tags.
Your post replies are an easy way to pick up some quality people to follow. :)
This guy is awesome. I'm lost for words.
I love him. He's a friend... another... Liberty Professional. I wish I could buy him a drink!
You can! Or at least you can donate to his fundraiser. His wife is trying to restart Toine's consulting agency. She will be the owner and 'hires' Toine as an employee. Toine himself isn't allowed to own a business anymore.
Read more here: https://www.facebook.com/FreeToineManders/posts/821723721351183
Perfect, thanks! Her gmail address was there, so I sent her some fiat through it.
Awesome!
Upvoted on behalf of the dropAhead Curation Team!
Your post will be Resteemed by @dropahead witness account of the dropAhead curation team!
Watch out for the #xx-votesplus tag!
By doing the above you will give us more STEEM POWER (SP) to give YOU more earnings next time.
Keep up the good work!
Most recent post: Moving #25_votes_plus to Discord
I wish I can see this, love when someone destroy their lies. I'm new to this platform, do I need to login in Dtube to watch this video? I'm asking because it always stop on 0:08 mark.
That's too bad! You don't have to login, so it must be a bug on Dtube itself. Maybe try a different gateway? You can select another gateway in the settings menu in the top right of the page.
It work now :)
Worked fine for me!
@neo-wiza, you don't have to login, but the video is hosted by peer-2-peer seeding, and is some times slow when first uploaded.
This post has received a 0.63 % upvote from @drotto thanks to: @banjo.
TL;DR- You cannot justify theft by how you use the stolen property.
I think it goes further, though. Beyond it being theft, redistribution can never achieve 100% support from those affected at either end. That, those that receive cannot be wholly satisfied, and those forced to contribute can never be wholly satisfied. Imagine three villagers- Herbert, Franz, and Leo. Leo owns a cow. Herbert and Franz are voting to take the cow in order to contribute to the public good. 2/3 are agreed that the cow should be surrendered, so, the cow is stolen from Leo; Leo is obviously angry. Now, Franz wants to use the cow to create roads so that everyone can move about more freely. Herbert wants to fatten the cow and eat her as soon as possible. Leo agrees more with Franz than Herbert, so the cow is set to creating roads. Herbert is angry. After a while, enough roads have been created that Leo is ready to support Herbert in eating the cow, so now the cow is taken from its task and set to fatten itself in the field. Now Franz is angry. When they eat the cow, the cow is tough and the villagers are thin. Herbert is still angry because he is not getting enough meat now. Franz is angry because not enough roads were made. And Leo is angry because all of this misery came at the expense of his stolen property, of which he was able to enjoy very little.
Yep, good example. At first sight, it might seem like a good idea to provide, say, healthcare to everyone that needs it, but this goes at the expense that the people are only able to use the healthcare services provided by the state. They are not free to choose. So, stolen property is used for a bad service. It's a lose-lose.
I firstly watched and then read what you had to say about the video. When it was cut off I was like "maaan i want to hear that fucking answer". If there was none? Pure gold:D.
Yeah there was none hahaha. I watched the whole hearing, which took about 2 hours. It was horrible to have to listen to those interrogators for so long. They acted as if they were heroes convicting an evil murderer...
The full video doesn't have subtitles, otherwise I would have linked it to you.
I can imagine:P. I feel you though. Institute of cryptoanarchy in prague has some good discussions and presentations too, yet Im unable to share it with Steemit for the same reason.
I haven't heard of the Institute of Cryptoanarchy. I have to check that out, thanks for mentioning it! Are you czech yourself?
Yop I am. It’s called Parallel Polis. It’s completely run on BTC/LTC donations. There usually are presentations about various blockchains, anarchocapitalism, or discussion about various topics where there is an obvious effort done to invite all of the concerned sides. I think you’d love it:).
I just came to say taxation is theft.
I have only one big problem with libertarians and is that they seem to trust emergent consensus and that has never worked in game theory models mathematically (although it happens in some realms of physics). They seem to behave like they want free government, and I like everything to be paid for, although never compulsorily.
I don't think libertarians believe in emergent consensus at all, and that's why you can't have a government that handles a one-size-fits-all policy. I agree with you that on an international level this has never 'worked', but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. The theorists couldn't predict the fall of the Soviet Union, nor could they predict many other things and so a lot of theories about state formation emerged. Why wouldn't it be possible that it will work some time in the future? There's a first time for everything :) I also don't think it's a valid justification to just ignore natural law, just because it "doesn't work" in the current political world order.
Thanks for commenting!
Oh, they may not believe in emergent consensus but they seem to trust it when it appears in front of them. Thus the reason Bitcoin and precious metals as stores of value are the economic building stone of the economy, which is of emergent consensus (It would be like they being men, sucking dicks and saying they are not gay). I didn't mention international success or not of libertarianism. Only mentioned that they seem to want free government, which is hypocritical if everything must be paid for.
I love his clarity, and the calmness he displays while saying what he is saying.
I guess you have seen the radio interview with the tax professor too. The first time I saw that I was amazed at how calm he sat there while the professor was "jumping out of his skin" ....is that even good english lol or just a bad translation for Hij sprong uit zijn vel. Hahaha.