i too pay tax, the difference is i dont look for a scapegoat when deciding why! the government take it not the vulnerable people on benefits..and as you seem now to be stating that unless you are paying tax you do not have a legitimate right to complain, then i think enough have been said on this, im sure many wouldn't want to belong to the 'freedom' you are espousing.....benefit people have no less a right than you to complain or expect to be free or be instrumental in getting that freedom.. regardless of whether they have or havent paid taxbogbeagle wrote:OK, nev and geronimo.
I understand your concerns and fears ... that a Stateless society would be uncaring. It's natural that you feel that way, having been conditioned to the Welfare State from birth. So have I, of course. Like you, I am apprehensive about how I would cope without a government' safety-net. Can i just stop you there, what i was more concerned about was the notion that people receiving benefits could not be classed as 'peace campaigners' and thus wouldn't be considered part of what that entails...thats is what you seem to be stating which in my opinion would cause much tiering of society...for instance what if a guy was a 'peace campaigner and then went on benefits..would he have to denounce his membership as it were..
I will not be tempted to suggest solutions to the myriad problems that you raise; because I don't have all the answers and because I do not have the strength to pursue fruitless arguments with the many people who hold opposing views. i would suggest that stating people cant be free or part of any freedom movement because they are on benefits will get many questions thrown your way and then adding those who are on benefits are in cohoots with tptb to enslave those who arent on benefits will get many more flung at you..
I do know that people are adaptable and, in the absence of regulation, they spontaneously form those structures and alliances which serve them best.
Just for a moment, let's refer to my original argument. Do you, nev and geronimo, concede that you are my equal and nothing more? Do you concede that you have no authority to command me? I answer for myself but yes of course
If you concede those things, then you surely agree that you and I are Free Men, by any logical argument. And so, I have to say to you that it doesn't matter whether you agree with the other tenets that have been proposed. You have no authority or ability to influence the actions of other Free men ... short of violence. agreed
If your community has a problem ... and your solution is to take by force, the property of other men ... then you are a Statist and an Authoritarian. There is no getting around that. There is nothing that may be said in mitigation. depending on the problem
I'll draw a brutal analogy for you... " I need some money to buy lunch. I see a man who has just been paid, so I stick a gun in his face and take his money. So, what? I was hungry, so I was perfectly justified in doing this." That is analogous to the Welfare State. Sure, you don't do the actual mugging; but you do appeal to others (politicians) to do the mugging on your behalf. no that isn't the case..it would need to be clarified that any money taken in tax is in fact used for benefit payments...you would need to show that is the case, other than inferring it is you havent made that case...but also if what you say is true then we are all guilty of such robbery...if a individual is taxed less than another while earning the same money then he too is guilty of this...ie self employed people...
Would any one of us instruct our children to behave so? Would we tell them to steal the lunch-box of other children, if they happened to have lost their own? How old were you when you decided that those childhood' ethics suddenly needed to be up-turned?
Geronimo raised the point that "I've paid in, I should be able to claim". There is substance in that claim. But, the facts are these ... you didn't pay in nearly enough ... the State spent what you paid in, so you've already "taken" those benefits.
There isn't any huge fund put aside for your/my retirement. The State spent it all and you already received the "benefits" of that spending. So, if you think that you are "entitled" to a pension, because of your contributions, you are wrong. Yes, you have been de-frauded, because you gave over that money in good faith. But, no, that isn't excuse to force other people to make up your shortfall. then it is everyman for himself..which would seem there is no point in people coming together to act as anything, for at the end of the day unless its a tax free society everyone is on their own
Do you see the dichotomy? You are telling me that we must have a State, else the "sky will fall in". And yet, that self-same State has perpetrated the greatest con-trick of all time. It's taken your money and you'll get little in return. But, you did it voluntarily, I guess, since you support the functions of the State ... so there's no-one else to blame. you make far to many assumptions, and so far all wrong
Me, I didn't do it voluntarily. I was forced to hand over my pay, month after month. I was forced to pay for health-provision, schools, councils and pensions that I didn't want. So, if anyone has a legitimate cause for complaint, it's me. Not you.
Freeman Stephen wrote:benefits claimants are a very small part of a very huge issue. no one is suggesting that those on benefits cant be free if you look at what is actually being said. in fact theres only a suggestion that there is such a suggestion! ive been on the dole and i recognise it as charity. i find it abhorant that such charity is only afforded by the threat of force used on others more fortunate. that same force is used to fund all manner of things from country estates for the super rich to nuclear weapons and anti civilian mines and cluster bombs. even the threat of force to extract tax is nut a very small issue compared to what is being proposed here. when you consider that 95% of the wealth is in the hands of only 3% of the people and how forcoble extraction of tax is making this situation worse, if the question being posed cannot be satisfactorily answered, the paltry "entitlements" keeping the unfortunate on the breadline will be a thing of the past. rather than argue over problems which may arise, lets work toward solutions to those problems before they can occur. as i said before ger, your concern is about benefits when there is no mechanism to extract the funding for it by force: what would you suggest as an alternative to fund this?
many hands make light work and benefits are a small part of a monumental task we have ahead of us.
I'd suggest that you've no business in labelling yourself "peace campaigner" whilst encouraging the State to extort money from others, on your behalf.
Freeman Stephen wrote:i didnt read that to mean all benefit claimants as you have. i took that to mean everyone benefitting from the forcible extraction of taxes who actually supported the forcible extraction of taxes. benefits such as roads and refuse collection as much as welfare. most people in my experience do not support the forced exploitation that is the tax system though they benefit in some small way because of it. there are those who benefit from forced labour but rather than abhor the practice they feel they can do nothing about, actually support the forced labour of others which supports their way of life. i believe this is what the op is referring to, not everyone who just happens to benefit a little from a very corrupt system.
Users browsing this forum: SilentDiver and 11 guests