fayfreethinkers.com

I don't know how to process such a claim.

And you're apparently determined to never figure out how.

David, I am practically begging you here to explain why you feel the way you do, and to explain your views in any way that makes an iota of sense. You keep repeating over and over again that I'm attempting not to understand what you're saying, after I have explicitly stated that this is the whole point of my being here talking with you at all.

@Savonarola, no, I didn't respond to your remarks. I tried writing up a response, but wanted to revise it before posting. I don't feel bad about riding my friend's bike to work because he voluntarily offered for me to use it. I feel bad about using the bike trail because those who pay for it are victims of threats of violence by the government, and the funds are, thus, bloodmoney. The government threatens to send them, to send us, to prison, and doing that would involve violence. You all here are denying a blatant, straightforward, empirical fact. You are delusional.

It is also not an appeal to emotion, it is an expression of emotion which I feel myself. An appeal to emotion is a form of argument. I do not believe that the attribute of rationality applies to emotions, I know of no way in which it would. I do not think of emotions as conclusions in a syllogism, I think of them as input. I know of no method by which to manipulate you into feeling a particular way, and the thought of trying makes me feel ill.

I no longer feel capable of continuing the conversation at this point. I have too little energy from other things in my life to write up a response I find satisfactory. I thank you all for taking the time to respond to my posts and participate in the thread, and I apologize for not having the capacity to continue. Maybe some day.

Peace to you.

Indium Flappers wrote:I feel bad about using the bike trail because those who pay for it are victims of threats of violence by the government...

Yes, and I don't mind also taking you down for this asinine "reason," but here I'm trying to point out the separate glaring, blatant hypocrisy that you seem to miss despite it being right in front of your eyes and pointed out to you repeatedly:

You want to use the trail, but you don't want to pay for using the trail.

Thus, you are a thief. The key here is that you don't feel bad for stealing use of the bike trail. You are using a service for which you are not remitting payment or other compensation, yet you don't seem to see anything wrong with this aspect of your actions.
You say that you don't feel bad about using your friend's bike because you have his permission, but the understanding for using the trail is that you have permission to use it because you are a contributing member of the community who pays taxes. But you don't want to be a contributing member of the community who pays taxes. You just want to be a freeloader, a thief.

The rest of your babbling is more nonsense about "violence," the refutation of which you never bother to address (plugging your fingers in your ears doesn't count), regardless of from whom it is coming. There's not much point in my beating this dead horse, but I thought this was telling:

Indium Flappers wrote:It is also not an appeal to emotion, it is an expression of emotion which I feel myself.

Perhaps you misunderstand, or perhaps I do, but I'll try addressing two possibilities in case I can't tell which you're referring to here, as neither works for you anyway:

1. You use the sensationalist, alarmist language of "theft" and "violence" for no reason, unless you feel that they have some sort of emotional power for your argument. After all, you've repeatedly had it explained to you that neither of these terms is appropriate; in fact, instead of simply picking more appropriate terms, you continually choose to try (however woefully ineptly) splitting hairs about counterexamples given to you by Doug and David so that you can cling to these words as accurate representations of reality. They're not. I'm confident that you would very much like to avoid abandoning those words because of their emotional power, despite their inapplicability here.
2. You -- for whatever reason -- feel that taxes (or perhaps the consequences of not paying taxes) can accurately be described as "violent." You seem to be saying that this is the emotion that you -- YOU -- feel, a fear of violence. Well whoop-de-fricken'-doo. If the government garnishes my wages, I wouldn't call that violence. If the government throws me in jail because I underpay my taxes, I wouldn't call that violence. If the government takes me to court and makes me pay less than I owed but more than I would otherwise pay, I certainly wouldn't call that violence. And you've heard similarly from others. You seem to be attributing your feelings to others, as if their interpretation of reality must be as ridiculous as is yours.
   So when you sit there wringing your hands about how you feel so terribly, painfully sorry for your fellow man and their terrible, painful ordeal with all of this painful violence being painfully threatened upon them while their taxes are being painfully forcefully extracted from them by an evil government that painfully sheds citizens' blood everywhere, you're being sensationalist, and we can't take you seriously. Frankly, neither should anyone else. You're like a whiny kid who can't even comprehend that that others aren't as whiny as he is.

Indium Flappers wrote:David, I am practically begging you here to explain why you feel the way you do

It should be clear to you that I feel the way I do because I have thought about it with an understanding of all the pertinent facts and conditions, and I have determined that it is an entirely rational, appropriate, productive way to feel. Plus, it doesn't give me an exquisite imaginary ague.

and to explain your views in any way that makes an iota of sense.

You clearly need to rest from your Herculean efforts to not understand me. Stop looking for an iota-- the sense is everywhere.

You keep repeating over and over again that I'm attempting not to understand what you're saying

My views are straightforward, and I have articulated them clearly. I have repeated the suggestion only because you repeatedly fail to understand my repeated explanations. If you aren't working at not understanding them, then you must be of considerably subnormal intelligence. Indeed, in the face of increasing data from numerous sources, I'm beginning to suspect that there is a genetic connection between subpar brains and libertarianism, and an even stronger one between subpar brains and anarchism.

after I have explicitly stated that this is the whole point of my being here talking with you at all.

It appears that your point is to abuse the English language, even after your abuses have been pointed out to you. You continue to refuse to adjust your vocabulary in order to conform to any sensible standard of conversation. (Can't your beliefs be expressed in verbiage other than slogans?) It appears that your purpose here is something other than understanding me or us; rather, you appear to be trying to teach bad English and sloppy thinking to us by rote exposure to them. As a conversationalist, you are nonresponsive. You do us far more violence than the IRS ever has.

You all here are denying a blatant, straightforward, empirical fact.

No, we are trying to show you that you hold a poorly articulated opinion that relies for its existence on childish antisociability (Get off of our stepladder, freeloader) as well as violence against the English language.

You are delusional.

Thank you again, Hercules.

I no longer feel capable of continuing the conversation at this point.

Continue? You haven't begun. Repeating your opening salvo is neither conversation nor continuation.

I have too little energy from other things in my life to write up a response I find satisfactory.

That's okay. You apparently lack the ability to write a response that will satisfy reason and conversation, and that's a far greater problem than either your self-satisfaction or your enervation is. But I suspect that your inability to write a response that satisfies you is due to the realization that your position is beginning to fail to satisfy you as well.

I thank you all for taking the time to respond to my posts and participate in the thread, and I apologize for not having the capacity to continue. Maybe some day.

Peace to you.

What a graceful abdication. You even got the lack of capacity right.

Did you answer this, Mr. Flappers?

Doug wrote:Your way also costs more, since it would have more freeloaders and fewer payers. What if you had a bunch of buddies that pitched in and made your own bike trail, but a bunch of people who didn't pay also used it? What would you do, hire police for the bike trail to kick out the free riders? See how the costs rise? That's just ridiculous.

Couple points.

Savonarola wrote:If the government throws me in jail because I underpay my taxes, I wouldn't call that violence. If the government takes me to court and makes me pay less than I owed but more than I would otherwise pay, I certainly wouldn't call that violence.

Along with his violent abuse of the meaning of words, which *always* seems to be the starting point with these libertarian variants, Indium seems to be peddling this notion that one can go to jail for not being able to pay their taxes. Wrong. The US does not have a debtors prison. You cannot, will not, go to jail for not being able to pay your taxes. You can go to prison on occasion for purposely filing a fraudulent tax return and fraudulently avoiding paying taxes you owe, and that is as is it should be, because that would be stealing.

When he says:

Are you claiming that they do not threaten to imprison people, or to confiscate their property, for not paying their taxes?

The government can only take their property, when it's not really their property, it's the governments at that point because that person already stole that amount, and usually much more, from us (via, our representative government).

When he says:

Are you claiming that no one is ever sent to prison for not paying taxes?

People do go to prison for engaging in fraud as they purposely evade taxes, they never go to prison for simply being unable to pay taxes they legally owe.

When he says:

Are you claiming that no one ever has their property confiscated for not paying taxes?

Again, question begging. It's not their property. As is clearly laid out in the rule book that is followed when you choose to stand on our step ladder, ride on our trail and play the game called USA, the government can only take that property when it's the case that it's not your property because you already stole that pelf from the government (and us).

Doug wrote:Did you answer this, Mr. Flappers?

Doug wrote:Your way also costs more, since it would have more freeloaders and fewer payers. What if you had a bunch of buddies that pitched in and made your own bike trail, but a bunch of people who didn't pay also used it? What would you do, hire police for the bike trail to kick out the free riders? See how the costs rise? That's just ridiculous.

Do you desire me to?

Here I thought talking to me made you guys all ill. Why invite me back once I've exited?

I imagine a group of anarchists working together on a voluntarily funded bike-trail project being fairly charitable. I don't expect that they'd hire police to patrol it.

But so? I never see government police on the Fayetteville bike trail. People can still use it even if they don't buy or sell anything in the area, (thus paying sales taxes), or live nearby.

The monetary cost is a separate issue. If trail A is voluntarily funded and trail B is involuntarily funded, and the monetary costs of each are equal, I'd prefer trail A, because it would cost me less in that I wouldn't have to feel bothered by the involuntary nature of trail B's funding. I don't know how much more trail A would have to cost monetarily before I'd prefer trail B. I was more interested in figuring out why people lack that "emotional cost" that I have, (being bothered by involuntary funding), in the first place.

David Franks wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:David, I am practically begging you here to explain why you feel the way you do

It should be clear to you that I feel the way I do because I have thought about it with an understanding of all the pertinent facts and conditions, and I have determined that it is an entirely rational, appropriate, productive way to feel. Plus, it doesn't give me an exquisite imaginary ague.

I guess you think people choose how they feel then? I guess I don't agree with that.

I guess you're all going the opposite direction from me. I start with thought experiments from which I can figure out how I'd feel under different circumstances, figure out what sort of principles of interaction would allow me to feel good generally, then apply those principles to different situations. I judge the laws by my preferred property order, which I derive from thought experiments and introspection. You guys seem to take the property order which the law outlines and enforces and judge your emotions based on that.

Actually, that's a little oversimplified as an analysis of your expressions in this thread. I think it makes it clearer to add that you're conflating variable and value. The way I outlined the idea of a "property order", different people could prefer different orders, the way different people prefer different flavors of icecream. My statement, "theft means taking justly owned property from its just owner without their consent", requires a property order to operationalize. You need principles by which to determine what property is justly owned and by whom it is justly owned. Different property orders are just different sets of such principles, and different people will prefer different orders or sets of principles based on how they feel in different situations.

When David says, "theft means unlawfully taking", he is expressing a principle that holds within his own preferred property order, not one that holds within any property order. Within his preferred property order, one determines just ownership according to government law. Within mine, one does not. But my definition of theft still holds for both his preferred set of principles and mine. It's like I said "deliciousness means that an icecream flavor has a pleasurable taste, and I find chocolate icecream delicious," and David responded by telling me that, "no, deliciousness means icecream tastes like strawberries." A subtle error, though, perhaps.

Anyway, it's bad form for me to babble on after withdrawal like I'm doing, even upon implicit invitation. You all seem quite content with the way things are. So, if any of us can be said to have the superior "moral code", for lack of a better term, I guess you guys win and I loose. Your values have made you all quite happy, mine have already made me miserable. You all couldn't ask for a much greater victory than that.

Indium Flappers wrote:I was more interested in figuring out why people lack that "emotional cost" that I have, (being bothered by involuntary funding), in the first place.

And I was interested in figuring out why you experience "pain" upon knowing that people are paying into a system that benefits them while you experience no "pain" or feelings of obligation upon using bikes and bike trails that don't belong to you, you didn't pay for, and/or you don't support.
That's OK, though. We know why. I just wanted to give you a change to not come across as a whiny, miserly freeloader.

Indium Flappers wrote:I guess you think people choose how they feel then?

I guess you think *you* choose how other people feel, then? (See, I pointed out this fallacy of yours earlier, but you ignored it, too.)

Indium Flappers wrote:I judge the laws by my preferred property order...

Again, as I've already pointed out, and as you've already ignored: Your "preferred property order" doesn't lead to having the bike trail that you love so much.

Indium Flappers wrote:You guys seem to take the property order which the law outlines and enforces and judge your emotions based on that.

No. I simply see taxes as a good thing when they're being spent on projects that even anarchists like yourself think are so worthwhile that you're willing to mooch the benefits.
You keep running away from this point: that you're reaping benefits from a system that you are expected to pay into in exchange for reaping those benefits. You're a moocher.

Indium Flappers wrote:it's bad form for me to babble on after withdrawal like I'm doing, even upon implicit invitation

Well, I invited you to address my points, and you instead avoided them like the plague. I'd say that's not only bad form but also intellectually cowardly. If you think that babbling is bad form, then stop babbling and instead address some arguments.


And by the way:

Indium Flappers wrote:You need principles by which to determine what property is justly owned and by whom it is justly owned.

That's a good point. We'd probably need some way to enact a uniform set of rules to govern how any real property is described and claimed (in order to eliminate confusion arising from differences within description methods), and some way to enforce these claims and the corresponding property rights, and probably even some reliable and just method to settle disputes over such property rights and claims. Such a system -- a govern-ment, if you will -- would go a long way toward making your idea of property rights a reality...

I don't feel capable of addressing your points, Savonarola. I have never heard anybody use the definition of violence that you're using. I've talked with people who had different definitions of force, but no one has ever looked me in the eye and said to me that if a police officer arrested them, if another human being physically grabbed a hold of them and started dragging them away somewhere, that human being would not be engaging in violence against them. Nobody I talk with on a day by day basis would say that to me. Friends, coworkers, family members, anyone. I'm using the word "violence" to mean the same thing everyone I have ever spoken with, at least so far as I knew until this discussion, uses it to mean. Hitting, slapping, grabbing, dragging, pushing, holding down or in one place, shooting, hitting with a baseball bat or a stick, etc. If 99.9999999% of the people I have ever spoken with in my life don't look at those things and call them violence, I'll be beyond astounded.

Talking to you is like walking in on an opposite day convention. Communicating with you at all would require me to twist my vocabulary so, pun intended, violently out of proportion to its normal meaning with everybody else that I talk to, that I feel the usefulness of this thread in revealing to me the differences between myself and most other people I interact with has dropped like lead down a deep, dark, bottomless pit. I'd prefer finding some other conversation partners who use the same definition that everyone else I know uses, than trying to inure myself into your alien mode of thought.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:I was more interested in figuring out why people lack that "emotional cost" that I have, (being bothered by involuntary funding), in the first place.

And I was interested in figuring out why you experience "pain" upon knowing that people are paying into a system that benefits them while you experience no "pain" or feelings of obligation upon using bikes and bike trails that don't belong to you, you didn't pay for, and/or you don't support.
That's OK, though. We know why. I just wanted to give you a change to not come across as a whiny, miserly freeloader.

The bike trail doesn't belong to the government either, because it was funded involuntarily. So why should I feel any obligation to pay them for it?

I guess you think I should accept your preferred property order, in which the government basically owns whatever the heck it wants. But I'd rather not drive my soul over a cliff, so no thank you.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:I guess you think people choose how they feel then?

I guess you think *you* choose how other people feel, then? (See, I pointed out this fallacy of yours earlier, but you ignored it, too.)

What fallacy? You're just talking nonsense. I don't think anybody directly chooses how anyone feels. We may feel things in response to actions chosen by others or by ourselves, or in response to certain non-man-made events, but we don't have some kind of control panel in our brains where we can flip on happiness, switch off sadness, and dial our anger up or down a few degrees based on the situation.

Nor would I want such a control panel, certainly not for other people. I've said this already.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:I judge the laws by my preferred property order...

Again, as I've already pointed out, and as you've already ignored: Your "preferred property order" doesn't lead to having the bike trail that you love so much.

Your evidence for this is that a voluntarily funded trail doesn't already exist here in Fayetteville. If you're going to condemn every idea that doesn't have a perfect working real world precedent, and only support ideas that have already been worked out, implemented, and pickled in the vinegar of history, then you're going to end up being far more of a conservative than any of the republicans you all pour so much vitriol upon. Isn't that kind of the definition of conservatism? Going with what already exists? It's the libertarians who are coming up with new ideas, doing experiments, and trying to figure out some basic general principles by which to discover possible new ways of solving problems.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:You guys seem to take the property order which the law outlines and enforces and judge your emotions based on that.

No. I simply see taxes as a good thing when they're being spent on projects that even anarchists like yourself think are so worthwhile that you're willing to mooch the benefits.
You keep running away from this point: that you're reaping benefits from a system that you are expected to pay into in exchange for reaping those benefits. You're a moocher.

Give me a break. You keep running away from the point that the system is mandatory. I only care about the expectations of someone threatening to throw me in a cage in so far as I don't want to be thrown in a cage. If people still had the money they'd paid in taxes which had gone towards the construction of the bike trail, they might be more willing to donate to an organization which only raised funds voluntarily.

Anyway, you're still obfuscating things. The benefit of the bike trail is a separate variable from the emotional cost of involuntary funding. One could certainly be a pessimistic libertarian, having a belief in state necessity or superiority in some area, and bearing the emotional cost for the sake of having some other benefit. But one would still have that emotional cost. You guys don't.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:it's bad form for me to babble on after withdrawal like I'm doing, even upon implicit invitation

Well, I invited you to address my points, and you instead avoided them like the plague. I'd say that's not only bad form but also intellectually cowardly. If you think that babbling is bad form, then stop babbling and instead address some arguments.

The posts in this discussion are quite long. It's easy for you guys to ask questions about how diseases could be controlled or drunk driving dealt with, and give yourself a rhetorical edge with the majority of people who probably haven't thought through problems like that. Every time I try to reply I feel the need to go into a detailed answer to every point you guys bring up, and it distracts from the main question. There are lots of good questions one could ask about how to solve problems without government, but answering them takes so much longer in research and effort than just the asking of them does that it means you guys can write up a response in an hour, while I have to spend months wandering through scholarly literature and news reports figuring out a good, satisfying rejoinder. It's exhausting, and I have other things to take care of in the mean time.

Savonarola wrote:And by the way:

Indium Flappers wrote:You need principles by which to determine what property is justly owned and by whom it is justly owned.

That's a good point. We'd probably need some way to enact a uniform set of rules to govern how any real property is described and claimed (in order to eliminate confusion arising from differences within description methods), and some way to enforce these claims and the corresponding property rights, and probably even some reliable and just method to settle disputes over such property rights and claims. Such a system -- a govern-ment, if you will -- would go a long way toward making your idea of property rights a reality...

Oh my goodness this whole thread is so hilarious and sad.

Variable and value again, dude. You're using the word government to both mean any system which people set up to protect property rights, and to mean the particular kind of system you prefer to try and use to protect property rights and settle disputes. I think most of the people I interact with on a daily basis have a concept of ownership which isn't contingent upon any concept of government. Again, I feel certain ways in different kinds of situations, and I come up with and adjust my concepts of property and ownership based on how I feel. You can say that people set up a government to enforce a common set of ideas of how they should interact and of who owns what, but then you can no longer also say that the government establishes property rights and that the concept of property is contingent upon the existence of a government. Either people create the government to enforce their preferred principles of property and social interaction, or they gain their ideas of property entirely from the laws the government creates and enforces. If it's the first, then you've lost your ability to say that my preferred property order is illegitimate merely because it doesn't match the law, because your own preferred order precedes the law. You can no longer say that theft is unlawful taking of property, because people start with ideas about what constitutes just ownership and theft and come up with laws and a government to enforce them based on that. If it's the second, you no longer have any reason to change the government or the laws in any way, since you have to judge whether your own emotions are rational or irrational based on what the law says and what government officials do.

Anyway, you all already know that communities have existed which resolved disputes and interacted in general accordance with some property order without having a government provide protective or judicial services. You all already know that dispute resolution and protection of property rights and contracts can be done by people who don't levy taxes to fund themselves or keep others from starting similar services in the same area, or even control others who start similar services so that they act in accordance with some similar idea of justice. You don't believe that government is the only way to resolve disputes or protect rights, you simply believe that it's the best way, and that other ways only work in tiny groups of people, like intentional communities or primitive societies with very low population density, or perhaps in places where a government is making sure people use those alternative services the way you think they should.

So it's disingenuous of you to act like any system of protecting people and resolving disputes constitutes a government.

Indium Flappers wrote:When David says, "theft means unlawfully taking", he is expressing a principle that holds within his own preferred property order, not one that holds within any property order. Within his preferred property order, one determines just ownership according to government law. Within mine, one does not.

This does not refer to government law; it refers to the meaning of a word. It is not a principle of anybody's "preferred property order"; it is a principle of using language. If you can't talk about a "preferred property order" without abusing the language we all use, or without inventing your own language, then you are talking nonsense. This is the case even if you are not talking about nonsense, but you haven't reached that point.

At such time as you are able to discuss your "preferred property order" without abusing or redefining the basic vocabulary that has for a long time applied, and still applies, to the topic of "preferred property order" as well as in general use, please do so. Until you can do so, you will not be able to show that taxation is immoral in any way-- if even then.

Indium Flappers wrote:Talking to you is like walking in on an opposite day convention.

Says the guy who thinks that 99.9999999% of people think that garnishing wages is "violence." Suuure.

Indium Flappers wrote:The bike trail doesn't belong to the government either... So why should I feel any obligation to pay them for it?

Regardless of whether your lead-in is true or false: You didn't pay for it, and you use it. You damn freeloader.
If I steal Darrel's goat, do you then have the right to the goat? No. So saying, "the government doesn't own it" means nothing. Rather, if you took the milk from the goat that I was feeding, you'd still be freeloading off of my feed (and Darrel's goat).

Indium Flappers wrote:I don't think anybody directly chooses how anyone feels.

Hoo boy. Has anybody told you before that you're very, very bad at reading comprehension? Try reading my response below; maybe reading my response will help you understand what you haven't understood.

Indium Flappers wrote:What fallacy? You're just talking nonsense.

I think I've well-established the fallacy: "You seem to be attributing your feelings to others, as if their interpretation of reality must be as ridiculous as is yours."
You insist that because you feel that taxation is "violent," other people are being taxed with the "threat of violence." But as you so explicitly asserted, your idea of "violence" and my idea of "violence" are not the same. As your argument rests upon this idea of "threat of violence," yet you cannot know whether others feel the same "threat of violence" as you do, your entire argument falls apart when the "threat of violence" is not felt.
The only way your argument works is if *your* idea of violence is imposed upon others' minds.

Indium Flappers wrote:Your evidence for this is that a voluntarily funded trail doesn't already exist here in Fayetteville.

The bike trail is just one example. There aren't privately funded bike trails, there aren't privately funded surface streets, there aren't privately funded firefighters...

Indium Flappers wrote:If you're going to condemn every idea that doesn't have a perfect working real world precedent...

Good grief. Perfection is not a requirement. Stop woefully mischaracterizing my position.

Indium Flappers wrote:... then you're going to end up being far more of a conservative...

You have this totally backward. I'm not saying that Fayetteville cannot build bike trails because no one built bike trails. Quite the opposite; Fayetteville built bike trails because (1) they determined that it would benefit the community and (2) no one had built bike trails to benefit the community.
Regardless, suppose that nobody anywhere had built bike trails before. The city of Fayetteville still could have done it. The damning fact is that no privately-funded organization did so in Fayetteville. Fayettevillians had ample, unmitigated opportunity to organize creation of a voluntarily funded bike trail. It didn't happen.
No wonder you think talking to me is like an opposite-day convention. You have everything backward! You live in an alternate reality!

Indium Flappers wrote:You keep running away from the point that the system is mandatory.

I'm not running away from this at all. It's already been addressed. Living here makes using the infrastructure mandatory. But you don't mind that, because you benefit. You only mind mandatory things when you're not immediately benefitting.
That's why I keep calling you a freeloader. You're getting the benefit of the system, and you don't want to pay for it.
There is a way to NOT be forced to use our infrastructure, but it requires leaving the system. You are free to do that. Being here is not mandatory. By being here, you are choosing to use the infrastructure (and in fact, you are glad to use it despite it being built with "bloodmoney"). Pay your share, you mooching hypocrite.

Indium Flappers wrote:I don't want to be thrown in a cage.

That's an emotionally-loaded talking point you keep bringing up, but Darrel has already dispatched with it. Maybe you just have a short memory.

Indium Flappers wrote:If people still had the money they'd paid in taxes which had gone towards the construction of the bike trail, they might be more willing to donate to an organization which only raised funds voluntarily.

This is why we can't take you seriously. Please look up how much the average Fayettevillian paid to construct the bike trail. I bet it's less than $20. How many biking enthusiasts in Fayetteville would have donated that to an organization with zero resources? 10,000? I doubt it. (And why do I doubt it? Because they didn't!) What will you do with that fifth of a million bucks? You can't even buy the land for that much, let alone do the actual work of building the trail. Nevermind the engineering, equipment requirements, upkeep...

Indium Flappers wrote:The benefit of the bike trail is a separate variable from the emotional cost of involuntary funding.

Bullshit. I'd rather have a free Whopper, but the benefit of the Whopper I get from Burger King is not independent of emotional cost of having to give BK $4.59 that I'd prefer to keep. And I must eat! Eating is not voluntary!

Indium Flappers wrote:Every time I try to reply I feel the need to go into a detailed answer to every point you guys bring up, and it distracts from the main question.

If your thesis cannot withstand a detailed analysis, the problem is not with the details. The problem is with your thesis.

Indium Flappers wrote:You can say that people set up a government to enforce a common set of ideas of how they should interact and of who owns what, but then you can no longer also say that the government establishes property rights and that the concept of property is contingent upon the existence of a government.

I call bullshit again, for multiple reasons:
First, I am not arguing that the "concept of property" is contingent upon the existence of a government. I never even hinted at such.
Second, I am not arguing (and my argument doesn't require) that conceptual "property rights" -- even not codified -- would never be recognized by people without a government present.
Third, at least in our country, the government *is* run by the people. People already have their general idea of property rights; those ideas get codified into law so that property rights can be protected by government enforcement and government courts. There is no contradiction here.

Indium Flappers wrote:you all already know that communities have existed which resolved disputes and interacted in general accordance with some property order without having a government provide protective or judicial services.

And that's fine! If you and your neighbor can settle your dispute about where the fence should be without lawsuits and without attacking each other with shovels, I won't stop you. But that doesn't work if you or your neighbor is being a douchebag.

Indium Flappers wrote:Oh my goodness this whole thread is so hilarious and sad.

Yes, yes it is. You've got three very smart people -- plus me -- pummeling you like a speed bag, you think that details don't matter, you rely upon alarmist and dishonest language, and you can't read... and you still think you're winning!

Indium Flappers wrote:I imagine a group of anarchists working together on a voluntarily funded bike-trail project being fairly charitable. I don't expect that they'd hire police to patrol it.

But so? I never see government police on the Fayetteville bike trail. People can still use it even if they don't buy or sell anything in the area, (thus paying sales taxes), or live nearby.

They don't need to patrol for freeloaders because so many people pay taxes, which is exactly my point.

Indium Flappers wrote:The monetary cost is a separate issue. If trail A is voluntarily funded and trail B is involuntarily funded, and the monetary costs of each are equal, I'd prefer trail A, because it would cost me less in that I wouldn't have to feel bothered by the involuntary nature of trail B's funding. I don't know how much more trail A would have to cost monetarily before I'd prefer trail B. I was more interested in figuring out why people lack that "emotional cost" that I have, (being bothered by involuntary funding), in the first place.

But the cost would not be equal if anyone, such as you want to, could use the trail and yet not pay for it. That is exactly the problem. If you could use the trail and pay zero, then fewer people would pitch in to build it, and those that pay would have to pay more--which results in fewer bike trails.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:Talking to you is like walking in on an opposite day convention.

Says the guy who thinks that 99.9999999% of people think that garnishing wages is "violence." Suuure.

Arresting somebody is violence. Physically grabbing someone and taking them somewhere else, is violence. Respond to what I actually say, please.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:The bike trail doesn't belong to the government either... So why should I feel any obligation to pay them for it?

Regardless of whether your lead-in is true or false: You didn't pay for it, and you use it. You damn freeloader.
If I steal Darrel's goat, do you then have the right to the goat? No. So saying, "the government doesn't own it" means nothing. Rather, if you took the milk from the goat that I was feeding, you'd still be freeloading off of my feed (and Darrel's goat).

Actually, for once, you've brought up an interesting point. The problem here is that in the case of the government, there's no good way to tell who owns what, once the funds have been stolen and used to build a trail or a road or a building or whatever. Sure, the best case scenario would be to return the stolen loot to the rightful owners, in this case all the people who ever paid taxes, but since the government has obfuscated the path any individual taxpayer's money has gone, that's hard to do. The next best thing is to consider most of that stolen property to be unowned property, and to do away with the institution that stole it all and let others homestead it.

So sure, give Darrel back his goat, but if you've stolen a thousand goats from a thousand different people, started a milk company, and sold milk from all these goats together to lots of people, or even given away lots of milk that you have no right to, then we should stop you, and return all the goats back to their owners, but no one person out of that thousand is going to be able to go to any of the people who've drank the milk you gave them and assert a property claim.

There's a lot of unjustly held property in the world. It's not all going to get back to its rightful owners, there's just no practical way to accomplish that.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:I don't think anybody directly chooses how anyone feels.

Hoo boy. Has anybody told you before that you're very, very bad at reading comprehension? Try reading my response below; maybe reading my response will help you understand what you haven't understood.

Indium Flappers wrote:What fallacy? You're just talking nonsense.

I think I've well-established the fallacy: "You seem to be attributing your feelings to others, as if their interpretation of reality must be as ridiculous as is yours."
You insist that because you feel that taxation is "violent," other people are being taxed with the "threat of violence." But as you so explicitly asserted, your idea of "violence" and my idea of "violence" are not the same. As your argument rests upon this idea of "threat of violence," yet you cannot know whether others feel the same "threat of violence" as you do, your entire argument falls apart when the "threat of violence" is not felt.
The only way your argument works is if *your* idea of violence is imposed upon others' minds.

Violence is a physical action. You're physically attacking somebody. The feeling is separate, that comes after you observe, (or imagine,) an act of violence occurring.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:Your evidence for this is that a voluntarily funded trail doesn't already exist here in Fayetteville.

The bike trail is just one example. There aren't privately funded bike trails, there aren't privately funded surface streets, there aren't privately funded firefighters...

Dude. You're engaging in a logical fallacy. Giving other examples doesn't make your argument more logical, it just means you're making the same illogical argument more times. It does not follow from the absence of something that it can not exist.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:If you're going to condemn every idea that doesn't have a perfect working real world precedent...

Good grief. Perfection is not a requirement. Stop woefully mischaracterizing my position.

You haven't clearly stated your position. Your position is incoherent. Do you believe there are no examples of voluntarily funded bike trails anywhere? Streets? Firefighters? Do you think their absence in one place makes it impossible in that location, but that their presence in another makes it possible there?

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:... then you're going to end up being far more of a conservative...

You have this totally backward. I'm not saying that Fayetteville cannot build bike trails because no one built bike trails. Quite the opposite; Fayetteville built bike trails because (1) they determined that it would benefit the community and (2) no one had built bike trails to benefit the community.
Regardless, suppose that nobody anywhere had built bike trails before. The city of Fayetteville still could have done it. The damning fact is that no privately-funded organization did so in Fayetteville. Fayettevillians had ample, unmitigated opportunity to organize creation of a voluntarily funded bike trail. It didn't happen.
No wonder you think talking to me is like an opposite-day convention. You have everything backward! You live in an alternate reality!

That no one here did it voluntarily doesn't demonstrate that it can't be done voluntarily. That does not follow. Your claim that they had ample, unmitigated opportunity is slightly off, in that it ignores any taxes they already were paying, any regulations upon their behavior, etc. And the idea that "the people are the government" is simply false. Are you willing to take responsibility for the deaths of those killed in drone strikes by the U.S. federal government, if you are a part of that government?

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:You keep running away from the point that the system is mandatory.

I'm not running away from this at all. It's already been addressed. Living here makes using the infrastructure mandatory. But you don't mind that, because you benefit. You only mind mandatory things when you're not immediately benefitting.
That's why I keep calling you a freeloader. You're getting the benefit of the system, and you don't want to pay for it.
There is a way to NOT be forced to use our infrastructure, but it requires leaving the system. You are free to do that. Being here is not mandatory. By being here, you are choosing to use the infrastructure (and in fact, you are glad to use it despite it being built with "bloodmoney"). Pay your share, you mooching hypocrite.

"Leaving the system" does not have to entail moving out of the country. The law doesn't care whether people are using the infrastructure or not, you have to pay taxes regardless of what government services you use or don't use. If someone used no government services at all, would you still consider them a moocher?

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:I don't want to be thrown in a cage.

That's an emotionally-loaded talking point you keep bringing up, but Darrel has already dispatched with it. Maybe you just have a short memory.

I don't care how emotionally loaded of a talking point it is. If people reading feel bad that people are thrown in cages, then that just means they share my feelings on the matter somewhat, and at that point I might be able to discuss alternatives with them. You don't care.

Dardedar dispatched with a claim I didn't make. He admitted that people go to prison for not paying taxes, thus conceding my claim, then said that this was "as it should be", and jumped off from there to strawman me by claiming that I was claiming that people who couldn't pay taxes because of financial difficulties would go to prison, adding in a question begging assertion that the taxmoney was the government's property. I already outlined my preferred property order and the basic principles by which I determine what justly belongs to whom, and explained what data I use to figure out these principles. You haven't explained what standard you use, unless it's the law, but if it's the law then that runs into the problems I brought up above. Why fight for changes in the law if the law itself is your standard? And whatever your standard is, what makes it better than mine?

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:If people still had the money they'd paid in taxes which had gone towards the construction of the bike trail, they might be more willing to donate to an organization which only raised funds voluntarily.

This is why we can't take you seriously. Please look up how much the average Fayettevillian paid to construct the bike trail. I bet it's less than $20. How many biking enthusiasts in Fayetteville would have donated that to an organization with zero resources? 10,000? I doubt it. (And why do I doubt it? Because they didn't!) What will you do with that fifth of a million bucks? You can't even buy the land for that much, let alone do the actual work of building the trail. Nevermind the engineering, equipment requirements, upkeep...

Never claimed to be a civil engineer.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:The benefit of the bike trail is a separate variable from the emotional cost of involuntary funding.

Bullshit. I'd rather have a free Whopper, but the benefit of the Whopper I get from Burger King is not independent of emotional cost of having to give BK $4.59 that I'd prefer to keep. And I must eat! Eating is not voluntary!

Yes it is. There's the benefit of eating, and the cost of the money that goes to pay for the food. How you weigh these costs and benefits may affect your behavior, but they're still separate variables.

This is why I feel like the above request takes us all off track. I could spend months figuring out how much a voluntarily funded bike trail might cost, compared to how the current trail costs. But so what? You're taking a function, f(x,y), and asking me to figure out x when my question is about y. If you have no ability to differentiate then I have no ability to communicate with you.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:Every time I try to reply I feel the need to go into a detailed answer to every point you guys bring up, and it distracts from the main question.

If your thesis cannot withstand a detailed analysis, the problem is not with the details. The problem is with your thesis.

Many of the points you're bringing up don't directly relate to my question. Such as, for example, the relative monetary costs of different methods. There's something else going on, maybe genetic, maybe upbringing, maybe conditioning, I don't know, but you're just distracting us from it.

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:You can say that people set up a government to enforce a common set of ideas of how they should interact and of who owns what, but then you can no longer also say that the government establishes property rights and that the concept of property is contingent upon the existence of a government.

I call bullshit again, for multiple reasons:
First, I am not arguing that the "concept of property" is contingent upon the existence of a government. I never even hinted at such.

I will apologize for not specifying who I was responding to with this particular point. It wasn't just you, it was all of you together. David telling me that theft means unlawful taking makes his concept of theft contingent upon the concept of law, and I took it to be implied in his responses that the concept of law was contingent upon having a government to establish and enforce laws.

Savonarola wrote:Second, I am not arguing (and my argument doesn't require) that conceptual "property rights" -- even not codified -- would never be recognized by people without a government present.

Cool.

Savonarola wrote:Third, at least in our country, the government *is* run by the people. People already have their general idea of property rights; those ideas get codified into law so that property rights can be protected by government enforcement and government courts. There is no contradiction here.

No, it isn't. It's run by corporate elites, lobbyists, special interest groups, and politicians who serve these corporate elites and special interests, and who get plenty of money for doing so. (This reminds me of Kevin Carson's op-eds on "us" being the government.)

Maybe a local government with a few thousand voters comes closer to being run by those voters. Easier to opt out, since you have less distance to move, your vote matters more since there are more people, you have an easier time talking to and trying to persuade other voters since they live near you, (though we do have the internet now, which helps.) But for this to be consensual, you'd have to either explicitly agree to abide by the dictates of such a local government before it could enforce these dictates, which I wouldn't do because I'd find it silly, or you'd have to have the ability to withdraw your consent and participation without moving to a different town, and to start up your own organization solving whatever problems arise.

This seems like a fairly straightforward idea. In many other areas of our life, we have the ability to withdraw our consent and participation in some organization without the need to move to another town, much less another continent or another planet. If the government allowed that, however, where would all the taxpayers go when they got fed up with what the government is doing? To some other startup organization that did things differently. Holy smokes, batman, what an idea!

Lenny Bruce wrote:Capitalism is the best. It's free enterprise. Barter. Gimbels, if I get really rank with the clerk, 'Well I don't like this', how I can resolve it? If it really gets ridiculous, I go, 'Frig it, man, I walk.' What can this guy do at Gimbels, even if he was the president of Gimbels? He can always reject me from that store, but I can always go to Macy's. He can't really hurt me. Communism is like one big phone company. Government control, man. And if I get too rank with that phone company, where can I go? I'll end up like a schmuck with a dixie cup on a thread.

(Quoted in Machinery of Freedom, by David D. Friedman.)

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:you all already know that communities have existed which resolved disputes and interacted in general accordance with some property order without having a government provide protective or judicial services.

And that's fine! If you and your neighbor can settle your dispute about where the fence should be without lawsuits and without attacking each other with shovels, I won't stop you. But that doesn't work if you or your neighbor is being a douchebag.

You might. There are regulations on how people resolve disputes between themselves, on when they're allowed to boycott each other for instance. ^[1] If people ignore these regulations, and, horrors, break the law, even if they haven't hurt anyone by doing so, are you saying you're ok with the government not enforcing those laws? If people decide to follow some other set of principles besides the government sanctioned law in settling their disputes, and they're successful in interacting peacefully amongst themselves, are you going to then let them get away with disregarding what the law tells them to do? I mean, god man, then we might have anarchy!!!!!!1!11!!11oneoneone

Savonarola wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:Oh my goodness this whole thread is so hilarious and sad.

Yes, yes it is. You've got three very smart people -- plus me -- pummeling you like a speed bag, you think that details don't matter, you rely upon alarmist and dishonest language, and you can't read... and you still think you're winning!

You're the one who can't read dude.

Indium Flappers wrote:You all seem quite content with the way things are. So, if any of us can be said to have the superior "moral code", for lack of a better term, I guess you guys win and I loose. Your values have made you all quite happy, mine have already made me miserable. You all couldn't ask for a much greater victory than that.

I'll use the language that lets me communicate with most of the people I interact with on a day-by-day basis. The language where when someone physically grabs somebody and takes them away somewhere against their will, you call it violence, and where if people take something that doesn't belong to them, you call it theft, and where having a shiny piece of metal pinned to your chest doesn't change the nature of these acts.

***

David Franks wrote:

Indium Flappers wrote:When David says, "theft means unlawfully taking", he is expressing a principle that holds within his own preferred property order, not one that holds within any property order. Within his preferred property order, one determines just ownership according to government law. Within mine, one does not.

This does not refer to government law; it refers to the meaning of a word.

So what does the word mean when people don't have a law that they follow, but still have a concept of property and of theft that they act according to?

David Franks wrote:It is not a principle of anybody's "preferred property order"; it is a principle of using language. If you can't talk about a "preferred property order" without abusing the language we all use, or without inventing your own language, then you are talking nonsense. This is the case even if you are not talking about nonsense, but you haven't reached that point.

At such time as you are able to discuss your "preferred property order" without abusing or redefining the basic vocabulary that has for a long time applied, and still applies, to the topic of "preferred property order" as well as in general use, please do so. Until you can do so, you will not be able to show that taxation is immoral in any way-- if even then.

I'm not trying to show that anything is moral or immoral. I don't know what you refer to empirically with those words. I'm investigating psychological phenomena. That's all. Cause and effect. Quite simple really.

Anyways, other than my moral skepticism, I'm pretty much using the same vocabulary most people I know would use. People don't base their idea of what theft is on what the law says. They have an idea of what constitutes theft which is independent of the law and of the government, basically just an amalgamation of how they feel about people's actions under different circumstances. Your definition of theft is question begging, it presupposes that one has to have law in order for people to own anything or avoid taking things that don't belong to them.

Your vocabulary is useless to me in communicating with most of the people I communicate and interact with. So I don't use it.

***

Doug wrote:They don't need to patrol for freeloaders because so many people pay taxes, which is exactly my point.
...
But the cost would not be equal if anyone, such as you want to, could use the trail and yet not pay for it. That is exactly the problem. If you could use the trail and pay zero, then fewer people would pitch in to build it, and those that pay would have to pay more--which results in fewer bike trails.

Ok... People can already use the trail here and yet not pay for it. And I imagine not everyone who pays for it through sales taxes uses it very often, if at all.

I'm out of time right now. Spent my whole morning writing this up. If you guys want a detailed analysis of how much a completely voluntarily funded trail in Fayetteville might cost relative to the current trail, that's going to take me months. I guess that's what you want though.

Indium Flappers wrote:I'll use the language that lets me communicate with most of the people I interact with on a day-by-day basis.

Go ahead, but you can't get away with such laxity and dishonesty forever. Have you ever noticed that most of the people you interact with can't communicate well? Probably not.

The language where when someone physically grabs somebody and takes them away somewhere against their will, you call it violence

When it actually happens, that might well be true. But you are complaining about acts in which nobody is physically grabbed. Lawful acts such as taxation and garnishment of wages do not cause anybody to be physically grabbed. Nobody is "physically grabbed" until they have broken the law, and very few of them-- those being the most spectacular thieves (failure to pay taxes is actually theft)-- are "put into cages". You have a very violent imagination. Perhaps you play too many video games. Do you also have rape fantasies?

where if people take something that doesn't belong to them, you call it theft

Like when somebody takes advantage of the system, but doesn't pay the taxes that make the underpinnings of their comfortable American way of life possible?

and where having a shiny piece of metal pinned to your chest doesn't change the nature of these acts.

A. You misrepresent the nature of almost every act you mention.
B. In the United States, that shiny piece of metal actually confers some authority. That is part of the agreement that the adults have made.

So what does the word mean when people don't have a law that they follow, but still have a concept of property and of theft that they act according to?

An intelligent anarchist-- and I greatly benefit the doubt here-- would not use "theft", because the concept of lawfulness is inherent to the word, especially as it applies to government. Find a word that works. And note that your question begs itself.

I'm not trying to show that anything is moral or immoral. I don't know what you refer to empirically with those words. I'm investigating psychological phenomena. That's all. Cause and effect. Quite simple really.

Earlier, you said, "You all seem quite content with the way things are. So, if any of us can be said to have the superior 'moral code', for lack of a better term, I guess you guys win and I loose." That appears to (grudgingly) sum up a discussion of moral code, which this discussion inevitably is. You started out with psychology by way of psychosomatic discomfort, apparently not realizing that a moral dilemma is at the root of all psychological distress-- including your own exquisite case. When you started talking about theft, you jumped into comparative morality.

Anyways, other than my moral skepticism, I'm pretty much using the same vocabulary most people I know would use.

I am not impressed by the fact that most of the people you talk to can't speak English. But it does tie in with the fact that anarchists are as a whole unable to articulate a convincing argument.

People don't base their idea of what theft is on what the law says. They have an idea of what constitutes theft which is independent of the law and of the government, basically just an amalgamation of how they feel about people's actions under different circumstances.

You acknowledge that theft is a wrong. How do you know that it is wrong? Because it does not comport with a code, a law, a moral precept, a handshake or another agreement of some sort. Whatever form the law-- the guiding principle-- takes, theft is unlawful: it breaches the property agreement. In this country, the parameters for property ownership are (for the most part) set-- and the agreement to taxation is made-- with and through the government(s).

Your definition of theft is question begging

It's not my definition; it is the definition.

it presupposes that one has to have law in order for people to own anything or avoid taking things that don't belong to them.

No, unless you read very literally, it presupposes that a binding agreement about property exists, and that the act of theft breaches the agreement. That agreement is most often expressed through law.

Your vocabulary is useless to me in communicating with most of the people I communicate and interact with. So I don't use it.

You really need to stop bragging about the language deficiencies of your cohort.

I look forward to your development of an appropriate, honest, meaningful vocabulary.

Doug wrote:They don't need to patrol for freeloaders because so many people pay taxes, which is exactly my point.

Indium wrote:Ok... People can already use the trail here and yet not pay for it. And I imagine not everyone who pays for it through sales taxes uses it very often, if at all.

You seem to have missed my point. Because taxes are mandatory, even though some people still don't pay taxes, there are enough that do pay that we can afford to build things such as bike trails. There are some freeloaders (those who didn't help pay for it) on the bike trails, but the trails are still funded because of mandatory taxes.

On your system, however, the number of freeloaders would increase dramatically if payment was voluntary but use of it was open to anyone. The cost per payer would become prohibitive.

I got about halfway through this post, typing my responses, when the exasperation was overwhelming.

Earlier, Indium Flappers wrote:I don't feel capable of addressing your points, Savonarola.

And I should have left it at that. Good god. You can't even get within a football field's distance of my points.
Now, understand: Some of this is that you're purposely running around the block to avoid the football field. I make a point, and you completely ignore it in order to start a diatribe about something I passingly mentioned, so long as you can evade my point at all costs.
But some of this is you running to a neighboring town's football field because you can't read the directions to midfield to meet me. I make a point, and you "respond" with... well, I don't even know what the hell you're thinking. It has nothing to do with my arguments. It's like we're speaking different languages.

Please go back to grade school and learn how to read for comprehension. I don't believe that you're truly as intellectually incapable as you come across, but I maintain my original assertion that you're behaving like a little (grade-school) kid.

And note: It's not just me characterizing you in this way. Everyone else here is also saying that you have a very peculiar way of interpreting and using language.

To Indium Flappers, Doug wrote:You seem to have missed my point.

That's pretty much his only play, Doug.

Indium Flappers wrote:"the people are the government" is simply false.

You forgot to give a reason. I think it is probably because the people are the government, "We the People" ya know.

Are you willing to take responsibility for the deaths of those killed in drone strikes by the U.S. federal government, if you are a part of that government?

Yes.
Because the people are the government and I am one of those people and the government is my representative, for better or worse, as it is yours.

Now this next bit is really messed up, even by incoherent Indium Flappers standards.

Indium: Dardedar dispatched with a claim I didn't make.

Wrong. I dispatched the exact claims you made, verbatim. I will now spoon feed them to you again.

He admitted that people go to prison for not paying taxes, thus conceding my claim,

Wrong. I said they do not do that. I said the opposite of that. If you didn't grasp that, let me say it again, people don't go to jail for not paying their taxes. They go to jail for fraudulently stealing from the government (us).
It's not clear why can't you comprehend basic language. Here is the text, from above. You said the following three things:

1) "Are you claiming that they do not threaten to imprison people, or to confiscate their property, for not paying their taxes?"

My response, again:
The government can only take their property, when it's not really their property, it's the governments at that point because that person already stole that amount, and usually much more, from us (via, our representative government).
Let me add... you can't beg that question and assume it's their property when according to our system, it's not their property, it's the governments, and by that I mean, ours. When a person takes that, it's theft.

2) "Are you claiming that no one is ever sent to prison for not paying taxes?"

My response, again:
People do go to prison for engaging in fraud as they purposely evade taxes, they never go to prison for simply being unable to pay taxes they legally owe.

3) "Are you claiming that no one ever has their property confiscated for not paying taxes?"

My response, again:
Again, question begging. It's not their property. As is clearly laid out in the rule book that is followed when you choose to stand on our step ladder, ride on our trail and play the game called USA, the government can only take that property when it's the case that it's not your property because you already stole that pelf from the government (and us).

The US does not have a debtors prison. You do not go to jail for not being able to pay your taxes. You can and should go to jail if you lie, steal and cheat us and try to steal our collective property by fraudulently cheating on your taxes and not paying what you owe (theft).

New:

[he then claimed...] that I was claiming that people who couldn't pay taxes because of financial difficulties would go to prison,"

Yeah, because it was rather apparent from the above quotes that that is not the case. You apparently didn't know that you don't go to jail for not paying your taxes, but rather for fraudulently stealing from the government and not paying what you owe (theft). Did you learn something here?

We've been enjoying the Louie CK TV show (on Netflix), I think it's just called "Louie." Anyway, it's really good. And a couple episodes ago he did a little comedy rant that I think makes the point of why this Indium stuff is so annoying. I can't find the clip, so let me give the gist of his point.

He said that kids, up to about the age of 25, know nothing but taking. We feed them, teach them, give them stuff, everything, and all they know is how to take take take, and then take more. It's all they know. Someone has wiped their bum, fed them, taught them everything, given them everything and that's all they've experienced. And Indium seems to embody that mentality. Here he comes along, like everyone, and enjoys the benefits of all of the work of the people that have come before, and he gets to enjoy the benefits of an education, and medicine, and science, and food, and computers/knowledge information, and a society civilization etc., and he's really done nothing for it. It's all been taking. It's all he, or any young person knows.
And then, heaven forbid, society has the audacity to ask that a tiny portion of what he works for and accumulates, he must contribute back in order to pay for all of that stuff that he took, and continues to take each and every day. And the whiny, spoiled, freeloading, brat, mooch then informs us that no, the very notion of the giving going in the direction away from him,... causes him to feel pain.

Good. I hope it burns.

Pay your taxes or our government and your government will take that stuff, because it's not your stuff. And if while trying to avoid that tax portion you fraudulently conceal and lie about the numbers, you may get put in a cage for fraud and theft. And that's a good thing.

-----
In 2009, a brother of a friend of mine got 15 years from the Fed, for doing just that, and helping others to defraud our government. Article: Here.

Excerpt:

On November 16, 2009, Stilley was convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States and two counts of tax evasion. His co-defendant in this case was Lindsey Springer. United States v. Lindsey Kent Springer et al., No. 09-cr-043-JHP (U.S.D.C. N.D. Okla. 11/16/2009). On April 23, 2010, after a two-day sentencing hearing, Stilley was sentenced to 15 years in prison, three years of supervised release following his imprisonment, and ordered to pay $700,000 in restitution. He and co-defendant Lindsey Springer (who received the same sentence) were immediately taken into custody to begin serving their sentences, the judge referring to them as "frauds and predators."

Stilley is incarcerated at the Forrest City Federal Correctional Complex at Forrest City, Arkansas. In late 2012 or early 2013, his projected release date was changed from May 17, 2023 to June 21, 2023. By the spring of 2014, his projected release date had been changed to July 15, 2023.

Dardedar wrote:Excerpt:

Stilley is incarcerated at the Forrest City Federal Correctional Complex at Forrest City, Arkansas. In late 2012 or early 2013, his projected release date was changed from May 17, 2023 to June 21, 2023. By the spring of 2014, his projected release date had been changed to July 15, 2023.

Time on for bad behavior?

You just posted a story of someone going to prison for not paying their taxes, and said that it isn't what it is.

If I had watched you walk into our metaphorical room with a chair, set the chair down a few feet across from me, sit in it, and declare "I am not sitting in a chair!", you would have been more correct and I would have had more of an ability to treat you like a human being and have a reasoned conversation.

You know, this whole experience has actually given me a little bit of hope. Some people I've seen online have openly said that they think it is "not wrong" to "steal the legitimately owned property of the rich, and give it to the poor". I'd thought most people, ultimately, could just watch people be victims of violence or theft and not care. But if you guys, and I'm not sure I've met more party-line democrats than you, feel the need to say that threats of violence aren't involved in taxation, that arresting someone and sending them to prison isn't a violent act, that taking someone who hasn't paid taxes to prison for not paying their taxes isn't taking them to prison for not paying their taxes, makes me think that, ultimately, you may feel something closer to me than I'd thought you did. Why else would you struggle so much? Why can't you just say that you're going to take what I've earned for yourselves, and physically attack me and lock me up if I try to resist? Why can't you steal, kill, and destroy with open eyes?

I had imagined that most people were like those of you here. I was wrong.

Thank you for your help.