Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you...

in freedom •  8 months ago

Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you. Everyone inherently recognizes this as a good thing because we all value our power to make decisions. We all value making decisions without being threatened. Unfortunately, most of us have not taken the time to consider the precise nature of freedom and its foundation in universal undeniable principles. Applying those principles to big issues may be complicated, but the concept of freedom is not. When applied consistently, it shows the way to a more harmonious society.

If somebody is forcing their will on us, clearly, we are not free. So perhaps it is helpful to think of freedom not as a substance, but as an ideal state of social harmony in which no one is forcing their will on anyone else. A violation of freedom is an attack on a particular victim whose will is being forcibly hindered by taking their life, stealing their property, or threatening them with assault. Freedom is not just an ideal state of society, but a moral code for respecting the rights of others.

Self-ownership is an integral part of being human. You own yourself. You own your body. You own your labor. For anyone to assert otherwise is to attempt to restrict your freedom or make you a slave.

Because you own yourself, it is wrong for someone to initiate force against you or your property. Acceptance of this simple fact is the foundation of a free and peaceful society. This universal non-aggression principle applies to everyone, and it is therefore wrong to kill, injure, assault, steal from, or threaten another person. Anyone who directly violates others, supports the violation of others, or violates others on behalf of someone else is holding us back from achieving our potential through the harmonious and mutually beneficial transactions that take place in freedom.

Chapter 1 Section I FREEDOM! by Adam Kokesh

hqdefault.jpg

I am the author of FREEDOM!, a book endorsed (I mean banned) by the US Department of “Justice.” You can get a copy here. I’m running for Not-President in 2020 on the platform of the peaceful, orderly, and responsible dissolution of the United States federal government. You can find out more here. I am currently on my #TaxationIsTheft tour! You can find an event near you here. Whoever has the top comment on this post after 24 hours can claim a free signed copy of FREEDOM! by sending me a message with their address.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  Trending

Recognition and enforcement of private property on a planet of finite land without due compensation for the loss of what was once commonly owned is a fundamental violation of the NAP. You can't say that choking someone is violence but sucking up all the air into a giant vacuum to sell to people in exchange for work isn't.

There is no true freedom without unconditional basic income, so I hope you include a chapter on it. Or else you fully support forcing the propertyless to work for those with property in exchange for their continued existence.

I agree with your statement that "Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you." But without basic income, that will never be accomplished for everyone.

I think the argument put forth here by Pettit is far stronger:

The view that unreasoned control takes away liberty and that it may assume a wholly invigilatory character is just the view, in more traditional terms, that liberty requires nondomination. I will escape domination only to the extent that I occupy a protected position and am empowered against such control on the part of others. My freedom will consist in that protected and empowered status. Let liberty be restricted to the possession of the basic liberties: that is, let those liberties define the domain of freedom and let freedom require the mere possession of those liberties (Pettit, 2008). We can still argue for a right to a basic income, so long as the possession of those liberties is taken to require not just the absence of interference by others in the relevant areas of choice but also the absence of unreasoned control – the absence of domination (Pettit, 1997; Skinner, 1998; Viroli, 2002; Pettit, 2007c

The argument is straightforward. Others will control me, if only in the merely invigilatory fashion, only to the extent that the division of powers between us means that they can interfere with me at will – that is, without prevention – and at tolerable cost, i.e. with a degree of impunity. If I am not assured a basic income, there will be many areas where the wealthier could interfere with me at tolerable cost, without their being confronted by legal prevention of that interference. Suppose there are just a few employers and many available employees, and that times are hard. In those conditions I and those who like me will not be able to command a decent wage: a wage that will enable us to function properly in society. And in those conditions it will be equally true that we would be defenseless against our employers’ petty abuse or their power to arbitrarily dismiss us. Other protections, such as those that strong trade unions might provide, are possible against such alien control. But the most effective of all protections, and one that should complement other measures available, would be one’s ability to leave employment and fall back on a basic wage available unconditionally from the state.

That you wish to entirely eliminate the US government and are on a tour about how "all taxation is theft" tells me you're far more concerned about paying no taxes than you are about guaranteeing freedom for all.

·

Freedom actually has nothing to do with income. In true freedom no one owes you anything. They also cannot force anything upon you. This does not mean we cannot voluntarily assist each other. We tend to do this naturally when we do not have a force pitting us against each other. Universal Basic Incomes biggest flaw is if it is strapped to anything resembling a government. The government doesn't produce anything except wars, and waste. It has no product of it's own. I suppose you could consider laws/rules (aka forcing the will of one or more people upon others) as a product of government as well. We are nearing a time where technology may prove sufficient to offer something like UBI without the need of a government. I wrote about that as part of my optimistic view of the future, and I likely touched upon it as well in my more pessimistic/realistic thoughts on the future. I know I've spoken about UBI in other posts. I am very much a voluntaryist. I believe in applying and adhering to the NAP as closely as I can, but I also realize that I must take a larger view as some people may move against me from far away and gain momentum and by the time they get close enough to me to see them it would be too late to defend myself. This is a challenge. One thing we don't want is the government doing UBI. They can only accomplish that by debt, or by forcing others to pay for it. They literally have no other way of doing it. Government cannot give you anything for free. Someone pays.

·
·

They can only accomplish that by debt, or by forcing others to pay for it. They literally have no other way of doing it.

Actually there is another way. It's called the Alaska Model.

·
·
·

You keep mentioning Alaska. The checks people get paid there yearly is a small fraction, like 1/10th or 1/12th of what would actually be needed to pay for people's basic needs. That's completely ignoring all the other economic problems involved too.

·
·
·
·

Which all other economic problems involved?
But more importantly why can this model not be applied to a wider range of things, you after all happily sign away your taxes to be merely Tacked onto the Credit side of an account system in effort to offset the odious debt a Private, For Profit, Mostly Foreign Run, Foreign Owned, Corporation.

And you believe that Venezuela was not caused directly because of For Profit Corporations but by pension funds of mom and pop kinda people.

The 1/100th would be a substantial amount in this small of a scope, we are talking a magnitude of difference from that, and you argue that because it's not 12000/year it's not good enough. What a moron, it's not Basic enough for mr I am too much of a coward to actually look into information that would free me from paying more than a third of my efforts to a Private Corporation, you deserve to slave away like an imbecile, you happily clamor for the title of your insolence, for your title of servitude and sub-servitude of the man child (actual idiot) you are presumed.

·
·
·

This is interesting. I gave it a cursory look, but want to give it a more in depth look and let it bounce around in my head for awhile before I commit. Initially the idea of a Tax implies a government. Tax is force. It is not something you can voluntarily choose not to pay without being penalized, thrown in jail, or possibly killed in the process. It is therefore force. It may be coercive force for the most part until resisted, but it is not voluntary and it is force. So having taxation as a component implies a force. It also still IS forcing others to pay for it. So it's not really different. Just a different form of taxation.

Though there is some interesting ideas in the document so like I said I do want to read it in more depth and give it a chance to SINK IN. I may change my mind. ;)

·
·
·
·

Please do read it. It's collectivist garbage. The basic economic principles still apply. There's no way to get what they want without someone paying for it. They want the "rich" to pay for it. That's the "solution."

They want to take from some to give to others. It really is that simple. I'm "rich" because I worked my ass off all my life to be successful. I don't "deserve" my wealth. All those people around me living in debt and way beyong their means who have never worked hard to learn a valuable skill in the market? Nah, they deserve better. I need to pay them....

Yeah, right.

·
·
·
·
·

Yeah, I do intend to read it again today. I suspected that was likely to be the case as soon as it started seeming to head those routes and especially when it started relying upon taxation. Yet, I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt until I read it and thought about it for awhile as it does have some new perspectives I've not seen before. Thus, I need to let those new ideas sift around for a bit in my head.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I'm glad you've not fallen into the mind trap of ad hominems, nazi scenarios or pedantic nonsense, but the circle jerking is hilarious even so, give that guy some more thumbs up!

·
·
·
·
·

Collectivist Garbage, classic.

It's "taking from the rich" when in fact it's a Good Faith Agreement.

The solution is guaranteeing a basic income, you'd rather tell the destitute and poor to go get a job or dig in trash, because mom and pop pension and social security is theft.

They want to take from some to give to others. It really is that simple.

Yeah, especially since it's all Voluntary, gosh how could you miss that glaringly important contention to "taxation is theft".

I'm "rich" because I worked my ass off all my life to be successful.

You're not rich, you're working for wages, you're an asshole who will gladly remain a slave instead of freeing himself, and ridicule the key as if it's not even worth putting into the lock.

I don't "deserve" my wealth.

You do, you should take it all with you into your next awesome super fun time adventure of asshole Uno, you will need it to play the victim of "they're forcing me to pay taxes!".

All those people around me living in debt and way beyong their means who have never worked hard to learn a valuable skill in the market? Nah, they deserve better. I need to pay them....

Yeah, way to sympathies with the lame with the uneducated with the destitute, with the unemployed, with all who are suffering because the job market doesn't exist.

Because people are "forcing" rich people to pay. As if!

·
·
·
·

You may change your mind? Why are you speaking as if you have the full breadth of knowledge on the subject when you assert this:

Tax is force. It is not something you can voluntarily choose not to pay without being penalized, thrown in jail, or possibly killed in the process. It is therefore force. It may be coercive force for the most part until resisted, but it is not voluntary and it is force. So having taxation as a component implies a force. It also still IS forcing others to pay for it. So it's not really different. Just a different form of taxation.

Not only do you VOLUNTARILY pay them but you can opt out of paying TAXES, even sales tax and if you so chose to you can even redeem any taxes production might have incurred in your products or services and file them with the IRS and you will be reimbursed.

http://annavonreitz.com/revocation.pdf

·
·
·
·
·

Wow, opt out and voluntary, ehh? I'll have to ask my brother-in-law, who's a tax attorney for the IRS, about that. He'll have a hearty laugh.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Instead of Ridiculing the Information and laughing at it, like a fucking asshole, maybe consider what I said and what is presented, especially what I said though, capiche asshole?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Losing the argument, ehh?

·
·
·
·
·
·

No kidding.

·
·
·
·
·

You may change your mind? Why are you speaking as if you have the full breadth of knowledge on the subject when you assert this:

I am not. Yet I do think you may be. Which is why I haven't bothered to respond in depth to you.

You are choosing to interpret in a light that allows you to attack rather than trying to consider what a person may be saying that would not make that a negative.

You see. You painted it as EXACTLY the opposite of why I stated it.

I stated it so I was clear that I can be wrong, and thus like any human might change my mind. ;) I also made it pretty clear there was some new stuff in the document I wanted to think about for awhile.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Yes you stated that that you can be wrong, but it wasn't in regard to what I quoted at all.

Tax is force. It is not something you can voluntarily choose not to pay without being penalized, thrown in jail, or possibly killed in the process. It is therefore force. It may be coercive force for the most part until resisted, but it is not voluntary and it is force. So having taxation as a component implies a force. It also still IS forcing others to pay for it. So it's not really different. Just a different form of taxation.

How is that not speaking as if you have the full breath of knowledge on the subject?

You start the rigamarole with in no unclear terms Tax is force, defining it with one word. You then go to describe what it is not, and why it means it's force, and then concluding, with quite unclear terms that "so taxation as a component implies force" then to reiterate again that it is force.

There was no "Some taxation is force", or "In some places tax is", there was nothing to give a hint that you were still open on the subject of tax, you exhumed authority in your very words, in the very message and the lack of debate about it or the lack of uncertainty, and hardly can you tell me that you were Open. It's quite important that you realize the small details such as what is it that I was referring to when I said that you are speaking as if.. because you're referring to exactly what I didn't address as there was nothing but agreement on that, but it was poignant to point out that you hardly are "may change your mind" example, but more a "I know what I'm talking when I'm talking about taxes".

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

There was no "Some taxation is force"...

Why would there need to be?

·
·
·

I've heard about that from reading Judge Anna's work, she mentioned how that is a tax on the oil for the pipeline if I remember correctly.

·
·
·
·

Is Judge Anna's work what the sovereign citizen movement come from?

·
·
·
·
·

Sovereign Citizen Movement is a farce: Sovereign Citizen is an oxymoron.
Judge Anna's work is not her singular work but the work of numerous people. Furthermore what are you actually asking, is she responsible for the idiots calling themselves Sovereign Citizens

So you either realized this and didn't bother to imply the error or point it out, that the two can never meet, or you didn't and weren't aware that you were implicating her into something that she has no relation to, or is there a third option?

·
·
·
·
·
·

Option 3; Im asking because I don't know anything about it aside from some people talking about it recently. Since you provided the links i am assuming you do know, hence im asking you.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

There's no third option, you didn't realize the error and weren't aware that you were implicating her into something that she has no relation to.

All I know about Sovereign Citizen is what I wrote above, I don't know if anything else needs to be said or any more research is needed into something who's title is an Oxymoron.

·
·
·

So you want to free yourself - by stealing from others? Noble.

The oxygen must be pretty thin up there in Alaska. You feeling light headed?

Loading...
·

You seem more concerned of loosing the violence of the state, to force your will on others, that about letting all people be free.

·
·

Nope. I believe no one should be able to force their will on others, and that everyone should be free. You just appear to believe that anything done by the state is violence.

I recommend living in Alaska for a year so as to qualify for the Alaskan dividend, so you can honestly tell me all about the horrible violence of money forced upon you the following year that increases your ability to say no to other people who would otherwise try to take advantage of the increased economic insecurity that would exist without that increased income.

Oh no! An oil company is effectively paying you for the right to drill in your land! What violence!

By the way, here's why Hayek supported UBI.

For Hayek, then, and for those who follow in his footsteps, a basic income is motivated not by an allegedly misguided commitment to egalitarianism or to positive liberty. It is motivated instead by the value that libertarians prize above all others – freedom. And it is motivated by an understanding of freedom that libertarians ought to find highly attractive. The point of a basic income isn’t to give everyone the same amount of wealth. It is to ensure that everyone has enough access to material wealth to render them immune to the coercive power of others. That’s an understanding of freedom that appears to have been good enough for John Locke. It ought to be good enough for his contemporary followers as well.

·
·
·

Successful private corporations lease land from the state of Alaska, they make a profit, and the money earned from those leases is put into a fund to give to people as a bonus each year. It's about 2K a year currently.

Let me repeat that first fact. It's a private corporation. You know what I mean. Those evil capitalists are making hand over fist in profits from a successful business! Clearly, we should use that as a model for government provided universal income, right? LOL

2K isn't even close to enough. The money is provided through a fund. That fund wouldn't work at the amounts needed to actually give universal income. You all know that though, and you would simple demand/force the corporation to pay more.

Guess what happens though? You end up with a situation like Venezuela.

Again, you guys don't understand basic economics. Nothing is free. Hell, oil prices fluctuate horribly anyway, so basing any payment system off that would not work. The fund Alaska uses:

"Our current portfolio includes global bond, stock and real estate investments, private equity, infrastructure, multi-asset funds and hedge funds," --Laura Achee

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/jp5wdb/only-state-free-money-alaska

Did you even research the concept before trying to use it as your primary argument for universal income? I suspect you did not. In case you still do not understand, let me break it down for you.

  1. Private corporations produce and bring oil to market from Alaskan land.
  2. They pay "rent" to the state for that access.
  3. Part (25% if I remember correctly) is used to put into the fund.
  4. The fund INVESTS in private markets to make more money (or lose in market collapses)
  5. People get tiny checks each year from that fund as long as it is profitable.

That model will not work for universal income, and everyone here knows it. Therefore, how would you propose to expand your plan to make it work? More "rent" charges to corporations perhaps? Maybe you'd raise the price of other corporate provided goods too?

Hell, let's raise the prices of all goods brought to market by 10%, and then use that 10% to pay the poor people. Sure, that'll work...

·
·
·

What if you don't want the oil company to drill in your land. And you don't want the money either.

(Edit; More explanation )

It looks as if the state in this one stood up for the people against the big oil companies, but if you look a little bit further, you see it for what it is.
If you don't want the oil company drilling on your land, (for whatever valid reason under which one is, that it is your land and another you don't want it spoiled) And all your neighbours accepted the bribe of the government (ofcourse they accepted they bribe of the oil company), they will attack you. The level of greed in those who take the bribe, the so called "free money" is way higher as the level of greed from those who don't want the oil company to ruin their land with tar sand or (shale gas - as is here the case)

In other words

The way for oil companies to get excess to your land is by telling your neighbours, that you are the one who is preventing them to get free money, and they do that via government. And those in government have their positions of power secured.

·
·
·
·

Yep, it's hush money in one sense. It's pennies compared to what the companies are making too.

·
·
·
·
·

What if you throw a hypothetical monkey wrench into a successful project that has proven itself monumentally and continues every single moment measuring insurmountably more than the last, and then tag along like an asshole and chime in "Yep, it's Hush Money". Well then I'd have to call you a hypothetical monkey wrench suckup.

·
·
·
·

Then they will drill all around your land, or the pipeline will have a bend in it. Period.

You speak of spills and cast doubt on the Alaskan Pipeline Project, you have no idea about it's history though or that's the last thing you'd be doing, but stick with the meme of "EVIL SHALE TAR SAND" because it applies in the least to the specifics.

The level of greed in those who take the bribe, the so called "free money" is way higher as the level of greed from those who don't want the oil company to ruin their land with tar sand or (shale gas - as is here the case)

LOLOL, here it is, evil greed for utilizing resources, evil resources.

The way for oil companies to get excess to your land is by telling your neighbours, that you are the one who is preventing them to get free money, and they do that via government. And those in government have their positions of power secured.

One hand washes another, we get it, evil government how dare 10 men with a purpose to supply millions by employing an army of men to try to buy off the people's land involved in this project, and how dare they, hypothetically "blackmail" those who don't sell, good 'ol america, as if the pipeline couldn't go around, as if there is no mediation and one asshole who doesn't sell will stop the efforts of thousands of men and those men will resort to force, because force, and free money. They have the money to buy the whole world 3 times and you think they care that one person doesn't sell and will make a giant fuss about buying to the point of force, why not, it continues the myth that you so firmly believe in, that the nature of the state is force.

·
·
·
·
·

I'm not talking about greed for using resources.
Or greed of the oil companies or government.
I'm talking about the poisoning of interpersonal relationships, bringing out the worst in people, which I find truly sad to notice, I wish for it to be different and work towards that
I'm not talking about evil tar sands. I took that as an example where some people might have concerns on which I may not agree, but I validate them.
And it is mostly not one person who is, what you call an asshole but more people, and calling them assholes does not make them one.

What is the nature of the state according to you? Co-operation? Giving advise to people on how they can better life in peace together? Doing suggestions on how to get along with others? Learning people how to resolve conflicts?
Or maybe you say this is BS, the nature of the state is ............ and I like it because of ..........

·
·
·
·
·
·

First and foremost your whole Spiel is Hypothetical. It's in the realm of what would happen, and not what happened and what has been happening and completely counter to that. So when I pointed out that neither does Spills Apply to the pipeline we are discussing, but neither does the fact that ANYONE is forced to go along with the plan or was, and I pointed out that I don't see the people who do these kinds of projects as nefarious and bribing, profits over everything. I am awaiting to hear some acknowledgement of those things, but I'm not holding my breath.

What is the nature of the state according to you? Co-operation? Giving advise to people on how they can better life in peace together? Doing suggestions on how to get along with others? Learning people how to resolve conflicts?

The nature of the "Federal" state is to Provide 19 Services enumerated in the Constitution, and the nature of the unincorporated Land Jurisdictions such as the Alaskan State (vs the Municipal services corporations STATE OF ALASKA or the counter part State of Alaska Federal LookAlikes) is to provide services such as Due Process/Justice and Record Keeping.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I'm not talking about those people who do those projects as nefarious.
You are missing my point.

You've explained the nature of the state according to a theory scribbled down on some paper. And maybe you believe that it has a right to do those nineteen, so called services, but I don't. I don't believe in constitutions or governments and that "one" describes the "other" or that a piece of paper can restrict the other.

Some people long ago who had the desire to rule in the name of so called government, have written a story that whoever "represents"that entity "government" has the right to rule

It's like saying the nature of Santa Claus is bringing presents to good kids (and punishment to bad kid's, in the sense of hitting with a sort of rod and kidnap them in a burlap sack to his house in spain this is how the story goes in europe), because that's written in the Christmas books. And because I believe those scribbles on paper in that book, that is the nature of Santa Claus.
In reality the nature of santa claus is you fooling your children that if they are good they get presents and if they are bad they get punishment from santa claus but in reality they don't get the presents from santa claus And santa claus is not looking if they are good or bad. Because santa clause does not exist.

It's manipulation, and lying and ruling via an non existing entity.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Assholes are as assholes do. Example is Finnian, can you argue on his behalf that he was not an asshole and has continued to be exemplary in that regard? Nobody Becomes or Is Made into an asshole, asshole is a LABEL that I and anyone can use freely, yet it's not going to mean shit if there is no substance behind that Label: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck, so it doesn't say anything about the Individual being labeled or their character, contrary to that it only speaks on MY-CHARACTER, and what I find to be asshole in deed, and if you disagree you can say why you don't think This Act speaks as to Their Character, which is fine, or you can try to chastise me and tell me that even if they are an asshole or act as an asshole, that doesn't "make" them assholes or that "it's not nice to call people assholes", or even start fomenting at the mouth with Ad Hominems! That's a Fallacy! I am of the firm position that if you seek to IRE people it's done simply in speaking and spreading the truth, it's quite a grueling endeavor: Truth, the love of it. Calling people assholes is akin to "I think you're acting in a very rude, intolerable manner" and if my opinion of you then offends you, it's frankly none of my god damn business to coddle your insecurities.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I have no idea what this reply is about.

·

Basic income, along with all other state welfare, is literally putting a gun to some people's heads to pay for other people's stuff. That has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberty. You're not kidding anyone.

·
·

I don't think you understand what "literally" means. I also don't think you understand what basic income means.

The closest thing in the world to basic income is in Alaska, where every resident gets a check every year as their share of the natural resources. You know, natural resources, as in the shit no one made, but someone calls dibs on.

So is your argument that the oil companies have a gun to their head? Because that would be as stupid as saying that you'd be pointing a gun at someone's head if they asked to drill in your backyard for oil, and you both voluntarily agreed to drilling terms where they paid you for the right to drill. It's negotiating a voluntary contract, and what the oil companies in Alaska pay to drill is the up front cost of doing business, not a tax.

Don't be a fool. If you lived in Alaska, would you turn down your dividend as being state welfare? Would you feel your individual liberty had decreased every time you cashed your dividend check?

Do you currently turn down every tax credit offered to you as being welfare? Because it is. Giving you $1,000 in tax credits is the same thing as not lowering your taxes but providing you $1,000 in cash. I doubt you have a problem with tax credits, and I definitely doubt anyone has ever literally put a gun to your head.

·
·
·

You're a funny guy and you're trying too hard here.

Yes, I do know what literally means. I was talking about taxes. If I refuse to have my wages stolen from me, men with guns will eventually come. If I resist, they will kill me. You know this too, but you pretend to be a know it all on the Internet. /golfclap

Oh, and the reason I called you a funny guy is because you clearly don't understand economics, but that's to be expected for someone with your beliefs.

How do you think that oil is taken out of the ground in Alaska? Do you think it magically appears on the market to be sold for profit? No, it does not.

Yes, the state has a surplus, and the people living there get small checks yearly as a share of the profit. That oil gets to market though through a ton of people actually working. They don't sit home collecting universal income checks.

Speaking again of those checks, the Alaskan ones are not enough to live off of for the entire year. Instead, it is a bonus. To provide people with full universal income, you would have to TAX others instead of simply rely on oil profits.

Oil profits I might add are WAY down these days. You knew that already though, right? Entire nation states such as Russia and Saudi Arabia have had to completely rework their economies because of the drastic changes lower in oil.

Again, you're so funny... 40% of my income is stolen every year to be given to other people, and you try to suggest I should be happy with child and other tiny credits. That's brilliant!

Hey buddy, I'm going to rob you today, but don't worry. I'll leave you with $5 bucks for the metro. Oh, you have a child? Okay, here's $5 more. Now, give me the money, or you go to prison. Resist? You're dead, mister.

You literally don't understand basic economics. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere, has to pay for what is given out through welfare.

·
·
·
·

If socialists understood economics, they'd be capitalists.

·
·
·
·
·

Yes, if they also had the correct definition of capitalism. Unfortunately they tend to lump any social issues they see in with the term. Capital is considered the poison causing all the ills. Being anti-capitalist then, to such people, means simply to be against everything that's bad...

·
·
·
·
·
·

LOL, it's so quaint seeing people talking shit about whole groups of people effectively labeling people as such without an ilk of substance to effect some importance behind the nonsense labels, quite embarrassing to witness at the same time, as such people live in their pigeonholed mentality of generalizations and suppositions and inferences of insignificant measure in the face of facts and in their airs of intellectual superiority they chose to lump onto Ad Hominems on top of Ad Hominems, the echo chamber of know it all "voluntarists" who cannot accept that Taxes are paid by choice and live in the world where people get killed for not paying taxes, and information such as Revocation of Election is meet with a idiotic nonthought Ridicule form the mascot of assholery that they so happy gather in support of, because why examine, why investigate and why research when you know it all already.

Loading...
·
·
·

The point is that the reality of the UBI and the propaganda drilled into people's heads through indoctrination camps and misinformation in popular culture are so polarizing that you can readily tell who knows their shit and who is parroting someone else conclusions. Thank you for spreading your message of peace, prosperity and doing it in such a clear and comprehensive way.

·
·
·
·

What's peaceful about taking, by force, from some to pay others? You people crack me up.

·
·
·
·
·

I will challenge you here and now in front of everyone over your insinuations:

Demonstrate that UBI is about taking, by force, from some to pay others, without a shred of doubt over the facts:

(1)That the money is taken by Force (2) and that the money taken goes directly to UBI.

My account is worth about $400 and I wager that you cannot demonstrate such, my whole account, password to be emailed upon successfully meeting the requirements of Demonstrating such matters of fact.

What is happening is that people believe Taxes are FORCED when in fact all taxes are voluntarily paid, nobody is FORCING-ANYONE.

What you are doing is EXACTLY what I described above when I said that you are using SECOND-HAND-CONCLUSIONS, and it will become obvious when you try and prove these things with FACTUAL-UNDENIABLE-TRUTH-OF-MATTER, and not misconceptions built on Assumptions and Presumptions such as Citizen=Free Man.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Using your line of language all extortion fees are paid voluntarily, correct? So is intercourse under threat of having your throat cut, right?

"Voluntary" normally (when not explicitly pointing out the specifics) means different things depending on context, as it then should. The common theme with anti-capitalists is that they confuse the proper uses in these contexts - such as the difference between discussing free will and it's narrow practical defence in the legal realm - and that they strawman the anarcho-capitalist position as being one for a society where no positive moral or contractual considerations are given to the poor, the weak or the person currently residing on someone else's property.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Using your line of language all extortion fees are paid voluntarily, correct? So is intercourse under threat of having your throat cut, right?

Can you explain exactly how you come to "this line of language" and why?

The common theme with anti-capitalists is that they confuse the proper uses in these contexts - such as the difference between discussing free will and it's narrow practical defence in the legal realm - and that they strawman the anarcho-capitalist position as being one for a society where no positive moral or contractual considerations are given to the poor, the weak or the person currently residing on someone else's property.

It's not a narrow practical defense to clear the presumptions of being a citizen, and it's hardly applies if there was no victim, and nobody said anything about contractual considerations given to the poor not being given by the anarcho-capitalist.

The point is that things such as Income Tax, Property Tax, apply to your Straw Man. If you don't clear the presumptions of the federal (commercial) realm, all those municipal statues, all those federal rules apply by contract of adhesion.

The people that collect the taxes and the people that hand the taxes in are both intentionally misinformed and disinformed to the nature of the state. They believe the State to apply to everyone in all its 18 million statues, stipulations, mandates, dictates, directives, actions and whatever other word they wish to use, and they also believe the state to be public, when for the large part the state is foreign to the borders it's jurisdiction is under, and Private Corporation. That is why people have a hard time dealing with the state, what they don't know hurts them.

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2014/12/10/twelve-presumptions-of-the-court/

Using my line of language: I made a Direct, Specific Challenge and set the terms in concise and clear language after which I remarked on specifically on Taxes not being Forced and Second Hand Conclusions in response to remarking about .. Borrowed Conclusions, and nothing more.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Genocide isn't genocide if you willingly walk to the station, voluntarily walk on the train, and peacefully walk into the shower. It doesn't matter if a Nazi has his uzi pointed at you. You did it, voluntarily, on your own.

·
·
·
·
·
·

There is no universal basic income. How can I prove what does not exist?

Are you talking about taxes in general? Every year the IRS sends me corrections to my taxes. Every year, if I do not pay those corrected amounts, they will garnish my wages to get them.

I cannot keep my job without paying taxes. Remember Peter Schiff's father? He went to jail because of taxes. Countless other people do too.

Sure, there are ways to fight the system, but it is VERY difficult to avoid income taxes these days.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove though. You think UBI should be given by government, and you think giving it is all voluntary?

Taking from corporations and "rich" individuals to pay UBI to others will not be voluntary. It will be mandatory. It will be a "do it or else" scenario.

All of you "free men" are always so cocky. You think just because you supposedly beat some court issue, probably simply because you were not worth the judges time to bother with, you think everyone else should do the same? You also think because of what happened to you, it should also be the same for others?

I was sued once in court by a thief. He used the court system against me to steal. I fought him as much as I could, but guess what? He still won. Then what happened? The courts GARNISHED MY WAGES.

There was no way for me to ignore the courts as you and people like you suggest. I was going to be robbed, and that was the end of it. If I didn't pay, I would have lost my job, etc.

You're delusional. Seriously, you are out of touch with reality.

Loading...
·

You cant have a basic income, without a government administration, and taxes.
Taxes are coerced, with a threats of force, and even violence.

If you can't get past that basic truth, it's makes subsequent arguments void.

On a side note, paying no taxes would mean a lot more freedom for all, anyway

sorry.

·
·

They'll wield the one ring and do good with it! har har

·
·
·
·
·

You cant have a basic income, without a government administration, and taxes.

Yes you can, you can have consensus over a better form of money which is proof to not inflate or deflate. Wrap your mind around that.

If you can't get past that basic truth, it's makes subsequent arguments void.

You should examine the issue of taxes more closely, you will be hard pressed to find an argument that actually demonstrates people being forced to pay taxes. People consent in numerous ways to adhesion contracts, then armed men come and claim you owe them yet if you contend that they have no contract with you and you don't owe them anything you will win, unless a miscarriage of justice occurs and you should seek further justice and tack on the miscarriage of justice as well when seeking for restitution, and you can bet your ass you'll be heard by a Justice of the Peace and can rely on the Continental Marshals to bring the accused to justice if not.

·
·
·

Your intellectual strength, and literary ability is great.

Your naivety is exceptional.

you will be hard pressed to find an argument that actually demonstrates people being forced to pay taxes.

Seriously ...?

Forget arguments ' demonstrating' anything.
Lets look at the reality of civilizations, with governments, and bureaucracy -since roman times-? of forced taxation...and work from that...

You will be hard pressed to find a reality that actually demonstrates people not being forced, into paying taxes.

·
·
·
·

Your naivety is exceptional.

What naivete? Need I remind you that you have nothing to float such claims on?

Seriously ...?

Finish the thought, don't ridicule me without substance, it's disrespectful first and foremost, have I treated you with such disrespect, why should I expect any less?

Forget arguments ' demonstrating' anything.

No, let's not forget truth, let's not forget fact, let's not forget logical proof, no let's in fact keep that at our side, always.

Lets look at the reality of civilizations, with governments, and bureaucracy -since roman times-? of forced taxation...and work from that...

It's not my business what Romans did, what Conquering Empires did. We are discussing the situation Today, right now. Taxes are not Forced onto people, taxes are presumed onto people who if they would clear the presumptions would not be eligible to pay such things.

I've posted the links, if you find contention with what I have posted please bring it forward and we can discuss it, otherwise I cannot ball up our Lawful Governance as the same as the Romans, or Bureaucracy (Federal). They simply are OIL and WATER and they don't "meet".

·
·
·
·
·

Firstly, my friend, I don't see someones naivety as a negative.
Quite the opposite to be honest.
So to be exceptional in a quality I see as positive, is hardly disrespectful.
(you see it as negative quality?)

I showed nothing BUT respect for your intellect and literary expression. ('great' is a sign of respect by my definition).

Your reply demands a full answer - which I don't have time to give, right now - it Il'l reply to it when I have time.

So please don't feel disrespected.

It was your interpretation, not my meaning.

I apologize if I wasn't as eloquent as yourself, and my words were misconstrued.

Better to meet as equals, rather than you as a notional victim. (of disrespect), I'm sure you would agree.

be right back !
Cheers, matey

·
·
·
·
·
·

Firstly, my friend, I don't see someones naivety as a negative.
Quite the opposite to be honest.
So to be exceptional in a quality I see as positive, is hardly disrespectful.
(you see it as negative quality?)

Obviously I wasn't saying to call my naivety exceptional is disrespectful, I only pointed that there is no reason or explanation attached to that.

I showed nothing BUT respect for your intellect and literary expression. ('great' is a sign of respect by my definition).

That's hardly the case when you Ridiculed my point with "Seriously..."

verb
verb: ridicule
subject (someone or something) to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior.

So please don't feel disrespected.

It was your interpretation, not my meaning.

Would you respond to one of your own points as you responded to my remark when you said "Seriously.."?

I apologize if I wasn't as eloquent as yourself, and my words were misconstrued.

It happens, language is a motherfucker, I cannot refuse your apology and thank you for the compliments as well. I hope you delve deep in what I shared, it's the least I could do and report back on what you discovered.

·
·

Accurate. Concise.

·

Freedom of choice is essential to living a free life, every form of currency ,even crypto, enhances or limits our choices, Governments need to be minimized, eliminating Government all together is very problematic. Security is self serving. Lack of opportunity is a lack of financial freedom, lack of choice or direction. Governments are similar to parasites, all built on slaver and stolen resources as through out all of history.Taxation started to pay for wars, to fund and support war criminals in support of a war industry that is ongoing, this is why the military industrial complex is as complex as it is and has not stopped, and many not ever stop, there is an actual military based on the Moon and Mars, then it goes to exopolitics, taxation used to finance the war effort to be used against humanity instead of benefit,wars that were funded by both sides, every where there is a Central bank, every country that does not have a Central bank is attacked, the Central bank and the Fed are the free market, there were less taxes, taxes create infrastructure, the tax burden shifted to the working class, there would be way more prosperity and less disparity. Multinationalist corporations play a huge role included with corruption. Big corporations get out of paying any tax, and any set up non profits as not to pay tax in international deals. Basic income is from the tax base, taxation is forced communism. The basic wage in itself is forced communism, people may live with less, every time a leader offers his patriarch people a gold standard of living the leaders gets snuffed out, by the ones connected to Central Authority,when did communism under the war machine ever work? this article is another step to actual solutions. American Freedom is an illusion most people in the world look to.The road to Utopia is flooded at the moment. Freedom has different meanings to different people. There is not one free human on earth, freedom itself is an illusion, a necessary one.

·

What property is commonly owned? You mean owned by the government? Heard of the Tragedy of the Commons?

How will you take ownership your basic income if you don't believe in private property? Is money not property? Was it cash that was previously 'commonly owned'.

You are violating the NAP by advocating for theft, just to pay your living expenses? lol

Adults, all consented, and it's voluntary? Then other people should mind their own business. I'm so tired of rulers and those who force rulers on others. How do we, those who reject rulers, find a way to coexist with those who demand a ruler?

It is a question of a lifetime. I'm not sure if there's a good answer either. If anyone can find it though, it will be freedom loving intellectuals such as you, Adam. I'm thankful to have you as a friend and wish you the best in all your endeavors!

·

Nobody forces Rules on anyone, it's counter to the Maxim or Law, specifically that it cannot compel performance as that is counter to the principle of Free Will (your right end where mine begin). If you don't consent to the ruler you are not his subject are you? So what is the question of the ages? How to Clarify that you are not somone's subject? It's a laughable question of the ages if you ask me, somehow I managed to Clarify that In court after crashing with my motorcycle into someone else without a license without insurance and a ounce of weed on me and walking out without anything on my record beside being "taken to jail" and "released without charges". I walked all over cops, figuratively, and even when I was getting taken to jail I had enough sense and knew my rights and asserted myself that the cop didn't even DARE to blink at his computer screen the whole way to jail, a good 1 hour ride in traffic.

You have more power than you are told, and we are educated to believe falsity and assume the title of servant of the state, AKA civilian, resident, citizen, and all presumptions born of claiming that title are VALID.

·
·

"Nobody forces Rules on anyone, it's counter to the Maxim or Law,"

Your ability to get out of a ticket doesn't relate to nobody forcing rules on anyone. We have rules about rules, all forced on us. Arbitrarily low speed limits, plants that, in quantity, become a felony to own, rules where a difference in 1mm in blade length get you sent to jail. Are you suggesting none of these rules are forced on us?

·
·
·

Yes, such rules are commercial in nature, statutes don't apply to free men, it applies for Federal Employees and those Dependent, Citizens, Residents, Inhabitants, and all other Legal Terms which are a Political Status and the system these things function under is Private.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html

Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you. Everyone inherently recognizes this as a good thing because we all value our power to make decisions. We all value making decisions without being threatened. Unfortunately, most of us have not taken the time to consider the precise nature of freedom and its foundation in universal undeniable principles. Applying those principles to big issues may be complicated, but the concept of freedom is not. When applied consistently, it shows the way to a more harmonious society.

Hence why cryptocurrencies will be one part to this idea of "freedom"

·

Cause goverment cannot put their greedy fingers inside and their loose tracking of citizen's funding and payments...old principle of ''follow the money'' tactics(patriot act and hommeland security)

yes i agree . what you said is true that freedom is owning yourself and not anybody forcing you of doing what they want you to do.

Kinda sad that freedom has to be explained.
Anyway, you do a great job explaining it! Upvoted.

Really enjoyed your lecture last night in Columbus, I hope the rest of the tour goes well!! Will send you my thoughts when done reading the book.

I wish you freedom!
Namaste

@adamkokesh Incredibly pleasant completion of article! Beloved the photographs and outline..

Loading...

@adamkokesh Thanks for your work as well!