Perhaps not for the business, but for me as an employee it would be well worth it.  I hate (and I don't use that term often) thieves.  I would do everything that I could possibly do to not only catch the coward(s), but also try to beat some common sense into them.

What this whole incident illustrates (the first story) is the perfect example of socialism.  Those that fail to work for something that others have feel that they can just "take it".  Politicians buy votes by promising people like this that they will "take money from the rich and give it to them".  The far left platform that the democrat party has become feeds this.

"Free" Healthcare
"Free" college education indoctrination
"Free" housing
"Free" food

I have not yet seen or heard any of the (24?) candidates from the democrat party talk about opportunity, hard work and/or the ability to achieve the American Dream.  Instead they pander to the "instant gratification" crowd and attempt to essentially buy votes from them.  Social "problems" seems to be the platform that all of them are running on.  No real solutions regarding national security, the economy (other than bad-mouthing those that are actually making money) and doing the core thing that the Federal Government under The Constitution is mandated to do.

Everyone gets upset about thieves.
Maybe you get more upset than the average person.
Maybe you missed your calling to be a security guard?

Seriously though, there's a huge difference in attitude between taking something that's not yours, versus demanding that the government provide that thing for free or reduced cost to everyone.
One attitude says that you are special and you get to break the rules, and the other says that we should all get together and change the rules but still treat everybody the same. You can call it naive but it's not thievery.

The hell it isn't.

---

Bull [BLEEP], all taxation is theft.

That's like saying all sex is rape.
It's just dumb.

Sweet Christmas, you are an idiot. A comment like that in real life will end you if you aren't careful.

---

Perhaps not for the business, but for me as an employee it would be well worth it.  I hate (and I don't use that term often) thieves.  I would do everything that I could possibly do to not only catch the coward(s), but also try to beat some common sense into them.

What this whole incident illustrates (the first story) is the perfect example of socialism.  Those that fail to work for something that others have feel that they can just "take it".  Politicians buy votes by promising people like this that they will "take money from the rich and give it to them".  The far left platform that the democrat party has become feeds this.

"Free" Healthcare
"Free" college education indoctrination
"Free" housing
"Free" food

I have not yet seen or heard any of the (24?) candidates from the democrat party talk about opportunity, hard work and/or the ability to achieve the American Dream.  Instead they pander to the "instant gratification" crowd and attempt to essentially buy votes from them.  Social "problems" seems to be the platform that all of them are running on.  No real solutions regarding national security, the economy (other than bad-mouthing those that are actually making money) and doing the core thing that the Federal Government under The Constitution is mandated to do.

Everyone gets upset about thieves.
Maybe you get more upset than the average person.
Maybe you missed your calling to be a security guard?

Seriously though, there's a huge difference in attitude between taking something that's not yours, versus demanding that the government provide that thing for free or reduced cost to everyone.
One attitude says that you are special and you get to break the rules, and the other says that we should all get together and change the rules but still treat everybody the same. You can call it naive but it's not thievery.

Actually, it's called socialism, and it is not a stable firm of government.

---

Bull [BLEEP], all taxation is theft.

That's like saying all sex is rape.
It's just dumb.

I do not consent to any taxation. Does that matter? No, therefore, all taxation is theft.

I wanna get laid and the wife says ok. Does that matter? Yes, therefore all sex is not rape.

Either way somebody is getting [BLEEP], but maybe you can spot the difference that makes your statement ridiculous.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's like saying all sex is rape.
It's just dumb.

I do not consent to any taxation. Does that matter? No, therefore, all taxation is theft.

I wanna get laid and the wife says ok. Does that matter? Yes, therefore all sex is not rape.

Either way somebody is getting [BLEEP], but maybe you can spot the difference that makes your statement ridiculous.

The people sent to represent you consented to the taxation. 
Decisions about your body are yours personally to make.
Decisions about roads and bridges and armies have to be consented to as a group.

---

Everyone gets upset about thieves.
Maybe you get more upset than the average person.
Maybe you missed your calling to be a security guard?

Seriously though, there's a huge difference in attitude between taking something that's not yours, versus demanding that the government provide that thing for free or reduced cost to everyone.
One attitude says that you are special and you get to break the rules, and the other says that we should all get together and change the rules but still treat everybody the same. You can call it naive but it's not thievery.

Actually, it's called socialism, and it is not a stable firm of government.

True enough.
I'm not defending welfare or socialism.
I'm just saying it's box-of-rocks dumb to call either "theft".
If everything is theft, the word loses its meaning.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I do not consent to any taxation. Does that matter? No, therefore, all taxation is theft.

I wanna get laid and the wife says ok. Does that matter? Yes, therefore all sex is not rape.

Either way somebody is getting [BLEEP], but maybe you can spot the difference that makes your statement ridiculous.

The people sent to represent you consented to the taxation. 
Decisions about your body are yours personally to make.
Decisions about roads and bridges and armies have to be consented to as a group.

---

Actually, it's called socialism, and it is not a stable firm of government.

True enough.
I'm not defending welfare or socialism.
I'm just saying it's box-of-rocks dumb to call either "theft".
If everything is theft, the word loses its meaning.

So just because everyone else says it's ok that makes it not theft? Lol, please. Further, about half the people didn't send those "representatives", again, just because the mob says it's ok that makes it not theft? Laughable.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The people sent to represent you consented to the taxation. 
Decisions about your body are yours personally to make.
Decisions about roads and bridges and armies have to be consented to as a group.

---

True enough.
I'm not defending welfare or socialism.
I'm just saying it's box-of-rocks dumb to call either "theft".
If everything is theft, the word loses its meaning.

So just because everyone else says it's ok that makes it not theft? Lol, please. Further, about half the people didn't send those "representatives", again, just because the mob says it's ok that makes it not theft? Laughable.

Which "half" are you talking about?
The "half" that voted for another candidate, or the "half" that stayed home?
The other candidate would also have consented to taxes. Different ones, lower ones, sure, but there would still be taxes.
And the people who stayed home were essentially saying "either candidate is fine by me."
Odd how people never seem to assert that "taxation is theft" at the ballot box...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"All taxation is theft" is a stupid mantra. The logical progression of that thought is basically, "all government is authoritarianism," unless every single person consents to every single law or there is no government. I just have a hard time taking that argument seriously. It's great in theory, but it's no different than communism. It won't work practically, and everywhere it's been tried, it's failed. Let's walk it back a bit and say "Taxation could be theft under the right circumstances," or I'll just have to figure you live in a fantasy land where you think either everyone would get along without an authority and/or you are [BLEEP] enough to take on the rest of the world, including organized tribes who don't give a [BLEEP] about your private property.

---

You guys are dead right, you don't mind being as free as someone else allows you to be.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

"All taxation is theft" is a stupid mantra. The logical progression of that thought is basically, "all government is authoritarianism," unless every single person consents to every single law or there is no government. I just have a hard time taking that argument seriously. It's great in theory, but it's no different than communism. It won't work practically, and everywhere it's been tried, it's failed. Let's walk it back a bit and say "Taxation could be theft under the right circumstances," or I'll just have to figure you live in a fantasy land where you think either everyone would get along without an authority and/or you are [BLEEP] enough to take on the rest of the world, including organized tribes who don't give a [BLEEP] about your private property.

Is "All taxation is theft" a really stupid mantra though? One of the primary reasons the Revolutionary War started was because King George III was essentially making the currency exchange between the thirteen colonies that they had established among themselves illegal and attempting to force them into using British currency, or, at least attempting to benefit off of it and therefore tax the piss out of them. Thus the phrase "No taxation without representation" was born. At least partly born of it. There's a lot of other factors besides the Boston Tea Party, etc.

The reality today for many hard working citizens of the United States is that we're essentially working roughly three - four months a year to see apart of our annual income taken by the Government (In reality, the Federal Reserve) and trusting them to do the right thing(s) with it. Which seldom they ever do. Regardless of who is running the Country in office or whose political party has the most pull with Congress. 

For sure, a body of Government needs to be in place. It can work. And it should work. The Greeks are credited for starting it first with Democracy, etc. But even most people are skeptical today. And for good reason. When you continue to see Lobbyists sticking their fingers in everything they possibly can politically or just good old fashioned Plutocracy at work. It's hard to buy into the system. 

We're just now starting to see some honesty in the mainstream in this regard. I'll never forget when Donald Trump during his debate started pointing out each and every single one of his fellow candidates standing up there on stage with him for previously giving them out money over the years. Because that's been going on forever in this Country. 

Hopefully that trend continues.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

"All taxation is theft" is a stupid mantra. The logical progression of that thought is basically, "all government is authoritarianism," unless every single person consents to every single law or there is no government. I just have a hard time taking that argument seriously. It's great in theory, but it's no different than communism. It won't work practically, and everywhere it's been tried, it's failed. Let's walk it back a bit and say "Taxation could be theft under the right circumstances," or I'll just have to figure you live in a fantasy land where you think either everyone would get along without an authority and/or you are [BLEEP] enough to take on the rest of the world, including organized tribes who don't give a [BLEEP] about your private property.

Is "All taxation is theft" a really stupid mantra though? One of the primary reasons the Revolutionary War started was because King George III was essentially making the currency exchange between the thirteen colonies that they had established among themselves illegal and attempting to force them into using British currency, or, at least attempting to benefit off of it and therefore tax the piss out of them. Thus the phrase "No taxation without representation" was born. 

The reality today for many hard working citizens of the United States is that we're essentially working roughly three - four months a year to see apart of our annual income taken by the Government (In reality, the Federal Reserve) and trusting them to do the right thing(s) with it. Which seldom they ever do. Regardless of who is running the Country in office or whose political party has the most pull with Congress. 

For sure, a body of Government needs to be in place. It can work. And it should work. The Greeks are credited for starting it first with Democracy, etc. But even most people are skeptical today. And for good reason. When you continue to see Lobbyists sticking their fingers in everything they possibly can politically or just good old fashioned Plutocracy at work. It's hard to buy into the system. 

We're just now starting to see some honesty in the mainstream in this regard. I'll never forget when Donald Trump during his debate started pointing out each and every single one of his fellow candidates standing up there on stage with him for previously giving them out money over the years. Because that's been going on forever in this Country. 

Hopefully that trend continues.

Lemme help you fish the rest of that elementary school memory out of your brain...
King George
George Washington
1773 Boston Tea Party, tax on tea...
Americans said, "No taxation...

... WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"

Ah.
Now we remember.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Is "All taxation is theft" a really stupid mantra though? One of the primary reasons the Revolutionary War started was because King George III was essentially making the currency exchange between the thirteen colonies that they had established among themselves illegal and attempting to force them into using British currency, or, at least attempting to benefit off of it and therefore tax the piss out of them. Thus the phrase "No taxation without representation" was born. 

The reality today for many hard working citizens of the United States is that we're essentially working roughly three - four months a year to see apart of our annual income taken by the Government (In reality, the Federal Reserve) and trusting them to do the right thing(s) with it. Which seldom they ever do. Regardless of who is running the Country in office or whose political party has the most pull with Congress. 

For sure, a body of Government needs to be in place. It can work. And it should work. The Greeks are credited for starting it first with Democracy, etc. But even most people are skeptical today. And for good reason. When you continue to see Lobbyists sticking their fingers in everything they possibly can politically or just good old fashioned Plutocracy at work. It's hard to buy into the system. 

We're just now starting to see some honesty in the mainstream in this regard. I'll never forget when Donald Trump during his debate started pointing out each and every single one of his fellow candidates standing up there on stage with him for previously giving them out money over the years. Because that's been going on forever in this Country. 

Hopefully that trend continues.

Lemme help you fish the rest of that elementary school memory out of your brain...
King George
George Washington
1773 Boston Tea Party, tax on tea...
Americans said, "No taxation...

... WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"

Ah.
Now we remember.

Here's some more information for you listed below. It's a little bit more extensive than your Elementary School education. I know it's hard for some of you to actually pick-up a book or find other sources of reading material once you've received your High School Diploma or GED in life but there's a lot more information to be learned and obtained post basic education in this Country. 

The idea that it was just a [BLEEP] tax break for the British on tea importation in this Country that sparked the Revolution is hilarious. It's always a lot more complicated than that. Certainly a lot more complicated than what they're willing to teach you in the public school system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”
In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks.
Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that it was “the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War.” This, he said, was the real reason for the Revolution: “the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”


[font=Georgia,]Franklin also reportedly said:
[/font]

The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the Revolution.

Alexander Hamilton echoed similar sentiments:

Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, said that paper moneyhad composed three-fourths of the total money supply before the American Revolution. When the colonists could not issue their own currency, the money supply had suddenly shrunk, leaving widespread unemployment, hunger and poverty in its wake. Unlike the Great Depression of the 1930s, people in the 1770s were keenly aware of who was responsible for their distress.

As historian Alexander Del Mar wrote in 1895:

[T]he creation and circulation of bills of credit by revolutionary assemblies…coming as they did upon the heels of the strenuous efforts made by the Crown to suppress paper money in America [were] acts of defiance so contemptuous and insulting to the Crown that forgiveness was thereafter impossible . . . [T]here was but one course for the crown to pursue and that was to suppress and punish these acts of rebellion…Thus the Bills of Credit of this era, which ignorance and prejudice have attempted to belittle into the mere instruments of a reckless financial policy were really the standards of the Revolution. they were more than this: they were the Revolution itself!

And British historian John Twells said the same thing:

The British Parliament took away from America its representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins … Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies . . . discontent became desperation, and reached a point . . . when human nature rises up and asserts itself.

In fact, the Americans ignored the British ban on American currency, and:

“Succeeded in financing a war against a major power, with virtually no ‘hard’ currency of their own, without taxing the people.”

[font=Georgia,]Indeed, the first act of the New Continental Congress[/font]

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

That's great, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the founders deemed representation to be important. They had no problem with the idea of government, as long as it was by consent of the governed. This didn't mean that everyone needed to agree, but that the government be small enough to best represent its constituents and one had the freedom to petition the government or move if they thought they were oppressed. I'm all for this. I just think it's "All taxation is theft" is the Republican version of "Hey, hey, ho, ho... *insert perceived injustice* has got to go.

Taxation can be theft under the right circumstances, but it can't be a blanket statement without also doing away with government itself OR having 100% participation and agreement. Any dissenter could prevent policies from being implemented if that's all it took. Alternatively, one could opt out of a service if they chose not to pay the tax, but that's super impractical. I'm sure Flsprtsgod wouldn't use roads or sidewalks or benefit from the protection of our military, police, or fire department, just to name a few. He'd be the freest person alive. Seriously, though, it's a form of disillusionment to think that life, at least at this stage in human history, would be better without government. There are places in the world were you could govern yourself, but you wouldn't want to live there.

---

Lemme help you fish the rest of that elementary school memory out of your brain...
King George
George Washington
1773 Boston Tea Party, tax on tea...
Americans said, "No taxation...

... WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"

Ah.
Now we remember.

Here's some more information for you. It's a little bit more extensive than your Elementary School education. I know it's hard for some of you to actually pick-up a book or find other sources of reading material once you've received your High School Diploma or GED in life but there's a lot more information to be learned and obtained post basic education in this Country. 



When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”
In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks.
Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that it was “the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War.” This, he said, was the real reason for the Revolution: “the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”


[font=Georgia,]Franklin also reportedly said:
[/font]

The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the Revolution.

Alexander Hamilton echoed similar sentiments:

Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, said that paper moneyhad composed three-fourths of the total money supply before the American Revolution. When the colonists could not issue their own currency, the money supply had suddenly shrunk, leaving widespread unemployment, hunger and poverty in its wake. Unlike the Great Depression of the 1930s, people in the 1770s were keenly aware of who was responsible for their distress.

As historian Alexander Del Mar wrote in 1895:

[T]he creation and circulation of bills of credit by revolutionary assemblies…coming as they did upon the heels of the strenuous efforts made by the Crown to suppress paper money in America [were] acts of defiance so contemptuous and insulting to the Crown that forgiveness was thereafter impossible . . . [T]here was but one course for the crown to pursue and that was to suppress and punish these acts of rebellion…Thus the Bills of Credit of this era, which ignorance and prejudice have attempted to belittle into the mere instruments of a reckless financial policy were really the standards of the Revolution. they were more than this: they were the Revolution itself!

And British historian John Twells said the same thing:

The British Parliament took away from America its representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins … Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies . . . discontent became desperation, and reached a point . . . when human nature rises up and asserts itself.

In fact, the Americans ignored the British ban on American currency, and:

“Succeeded in financing a war against a major power, with virtually no ‘hard’ currency of their own, without taxing the people.”

[font=Georgia,]Indeed, the first act of the New Continental Congress[/font]

OK.
Yes, there were monetary causes of the war.
There were many causes.
But the colonists did not demand zero taxation.
They did not argue that taxation was theft.
They demanded representation.
Which currencies would be acceptable for paying taxes was also in dispute. The colonists wanted their paper money to always be acceptable.
The British wanted taxes paid in gold and silver.
Then the British went further, saying the colonies could no longer even print their own money.

I agree that this last insult may have hurt the most.

But none of this proves any point about if taxation is theft.

What it does prove is that the colonists preferred fiat currency.  Too many right wingers today forget this.

Taxation isn't theft.
Money is created by governments.  Money can be made sound by gold, but social consensus within an economy that produces things that other countries want to buy is better than gold at this task.

Basic principles. Forget them, and you won't be able to make sense of the world.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's great, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the founders deemed representation to be important. They had no problem with the idea of government, as long as it was by consent of the governed. This didn't mean that everyone needed to agree, but that the government be small enough to best represent its constituents and one had the freedom to petition the government or move if they thought they were oppressed. I'm all for this. I just think it's "All taxation is theft" is the Republican version of "Hey, hey, ho, ho... *insert perceived injustice* has got to go.

Taxation can be theft under the right circumstances, but it can't be a blanket statement without also doing away with government itself OR having 100% participation and agreement. Any dissenter could prevent policies from being implemented if that's all it took. Alternatively, one could opt out of a service if they chose not to pay the tax, but that's super impractical. I'm sure Flsprtsgod wouldn't use roads or sidewalks or benefit from the protection of our military, police, or fire department, just to name a few. He'd be the freest person alive. Seriously, though, it's a form of disillusionment to think that life, at least at this stage in human history, would be better without government. There are places in the world were you could govern yourself, but you wouldn't want to live there.

I agree. 110% in agreement with you regarding the need for Government, rules, laws and so forth. We're still a relatively young Country in the grand scheme of things. I know 243 years seems like a long time. But it's really just a flea on a dog's butt when you look at a lot of other blips in our history's existence on the timeline. 

I just think it's hard for people to make a decision politically when you're really handed an option to the left or an option to the right. Both parties that are guilty of taking massive amounts of cash handouts from lobbyists who have rigged the table in their favor most of the time or cheated the tax payers out of their hopes and dreams. 

I know a lot of us are guilty of throwing a lot of dirt and shade on each other from the left and right. I have always been a spectator front and center and could never truly get on board with neither party. Because it just doesn't seem... American to me. To constantly be forced every four years leading up to another election to pick a side or lesser of two evils. To be caught in a tug-o-war. 

We can't seem to move forward as a society. Now with social media running rampant you now have political fringes on the left and right eating up most of the talking points and they don't represent the majority of we the people. Everything each previous generation has tried to establish or build up for the next generation seems to always go through some type of power struggle. 

But yet, we're still arguing and bickering like little children. Is it truly freedom in this Country to trust these career politicians with our tax dollars? When they go about losing trillions of dollars and literally no one holds them accountable for it? At least not really accountable for it? It's bothersome.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Here's some more information for you. It's a little bit more extensive than your Elementary School education. I know it's hard for some of you to actually pick-up a book or find other sources of reading material once you've received your High School Diploma or GED in life but there's a lot more information to be learned and obtained post basic education in this Country. 



When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”
In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks.
Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that it was “the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War.” This, he said, was the real reason for the Revolution: “the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”


[font=Georgia,]Franklin also reportedly said:
[/font]

Alexander Hamilton echoed similar sentiments:


As historian Alexander Del Mar wrote in 1895:


And British historian John Twells said the same thing:


In fact, the Americans ignored the British ban on American currency, and:

[font=Georgia,]Indeed, the first act of the New Continental Congress[/font]

OK.
Yes, there were monetary causes of the war.
There were many causes.
But the colonists did not demand zero taxation.
They did not argue that taxation was theft.
They demanded representation.
Which currencies would be acceptable for paying taxes was also in dispute. The colonists wanted their paper money to always be acceptable.
The British wanted taxes paid in gold and silver.
Then the British went further, saying the colonies could no longer even print their own money.

I agree that this last insult may have hurt the most.

But none of this proves any point about if taxation is theft.

What it does prove is that the colonists preferred fiat currency.  Too many right wingers today forget this.

Taxation isn't theft.
Money is created by governments.  Money can be made sound by gold, but social consensus within an economy that produces things that other countries want to buy is better than gold at this task.

Basic principles. Forget them, and you won't be able to make sense of the world.

Today's money is not created by the Government. Today's money is created by the Federal Reserve which is then loaned out to the Government with interest due back in time. It's a never ending cycle that we've all had to pay for since it was developed in this Country. 

Colonists preferred an honest means of living. An honest form of currency that was circulated based on real, tangible value. That value is now created out of thin air by the banks that truly run the show. They rig tables, rob people and get away with it left and right. 2008 was the finest example of this. The Federal Reserve plays a major hand in all of that. They always have. It's a big club. And we ain't in it.

Taxation to a degree is theft. Sure, some of those taxes will go to certain aspects of society. School, laws, community events, public needs, etc. But there's a lot of it also being funneled out of here by ticks and leeches and there's very little being done about that. They get off easy all the time. And then we allow these politicians to turn right back around and give them control again.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

OK.
Yes, there were monetary causes of the war.
There were many causes.
But the colonists did not demand zero taxation.
They did not argue that taxation was theft.
They demanded representation.
Which currencies would be acceptable for paying taxes was also in dispute. The colonists wanted their paper money to always be acceptable.
The British wanted taxes paid in gold and silver.
Then the British went further, saying the colonies could no longer even print their own money.

I agree that this last insult may have hurt the most.

But none of this proves any point about if taxation is theft.

What it does prove is that the colonists preferred fiat currency.  Too many right wingers today forget this.

Taxation isn't theft.
Money is created by governments.  Money can be made sound by gold, but social consensus within an economy that produces things that other countries want to buy is better than gold at this task.

Basic principles. Forget them, and you won't be able to make sense of the world.

Today's money is not created by the Government. Today's money is created by the Federal Reserve which is then loaned out to the Government with interest due back in time. It's a never ending cycle that we've all had to pay for since it was developed in this Country. 

Colonists preferred an honest means of living. An honest form of currency that was circulated based on real, tangible value. That value is now created out of thin air by the banks that truly run the show. They rig tables, rob people and get away with it left and right. 2008 was the finest example of this. The Federal Reserve plays a major hand in all of that. They always have. It's a big club. And we ain't in it.

Taxation to a degree is theft. Sure, some of those taxes will go to certain aspects of society. School, laws, community events, public needs, etc. But there's a lot of it also being funneled out of here by ticks and leeches and there's very little being done about that. They get off easy all the time. And then we allow these politicians to turn right back around and give them control again.

That process, the central bank lending to the Treasury, is called quantitative easing (QE).
Typically the Fed lends to private banks, not to the government.  When they directly buy government bonds, that is QE.
But they often lend at interest.
And a lot of people think that this interest charge is not necessary, that it's just there to enrich bankers.
AOC is one of those people.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's great, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the founders deemed representation to be important. They had no problem with the idea of government, as long as it was by consent of the governed. This didn't mean that everyone needed to agree, but that the government be small enough to best represent its constituents and one had the freedom to petition the government or move if they thought they were oppressed. I'm all for this. I just think it's "All taxation is theft" is the Republican version of "Hey, hey, ho, ho... *insert perceived injustice* has got to go.

Taxation can be theft under the right circumstances, but it can't be a blanket statement without also doing away with government itself OR having 100% participation and agreement. Any dissenter could prevent policies from being implemented if that's all it took. Alternatively, one could opt out of a service if they chose not to pay the tax, but that's super impractical. I'm sure Flsprtsgod wouldn't use roads or sidewalks or benefit from the protection of our military, police, or fire department, just to name a few. He'd be the freest person alive. Seriously, though, it's a form of disillusionment to think that life, at least at this stage in human history, would be better without government. There are places in the world were you could govern yourself, but you wouldn't want to live there.

I don't think Anarchy is preferable and yes, some government is necessary. That doesn't change the fact that taxation is theft. Creating the legal right to someone else's property doesn't make it right, it just makes it legal.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

What would a government govern without taxes? The Articles of Confederation tried this and couldn't raise enough money to do anything. It ended up in a riot. Literally. Some of the states didn't want to give the Federal government any money. It left the nation completely vulnerable. Can't raise a military. Can't have any law enforcement. Can't have any jurisprudence. Those are the basics right there. EVEN then, the founders didn't think for one second that states couldn't levy taxes. The states were taxing their citizens and very few people had an issue with it, as long as they had representatives.

People who are allowing for a government have to have something binding them to that government. Complete freedom comes with complete risk, and there is nothing in humanity that would keep someone from completely dominating another person unless you live in a Utopia where everyone thinks like you.

---

Consumption tax.

Yep, went there again.

It's also worth noting that the amendment allowing income tax only happened because the US ran out of Louisiana Purchase land to sell.

---

Consumption tax.

Yep, went there again.

It's also worth noting that the amendment allowing income tax only happened because the US ran out of Louisiana Purchase land to sell.

The civil War was partially funded with income taxes.
There were income taxes in the US before the 16th amendment.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.