«The mind is always asking you to do something over again, something you have already done so many times before. And every time you see that by doing it nothing is achieved. What else can madness be?»…«To be mad is to keep repeating something that has already been seen as useless, as worthless.»
— Osho. Chapter 10: "Come What May, Allow." The Great Secret (1975) p. 191
[Talks given from 11/1/75 to 20/1/75]selfdefinition.org/osho/The%20Great%20Secret.pdf
Excerpt from comments of source G+ post: Noel Yap
Shared publicly - Sep 12, 2015
If he likes to 'pay' taxes, that's all well and good but that doesn't justify him taking, through government, money from people.
FWIW, many parents and I volunteer to teach children but we don't force others to do so._________ Zephyr López Cervilla
Sep 12, 2015
The above is an argument of this sort:"I like to pay taxes for the military and interventionist policies even though I'm a pacifist: I don't like wars."
I.e., logically contradictory.
Perhaps you haven't realised yet but most of the stupid people in your country have gone through taxpayer-funded schools._________ Jeffrey Hamby
Sep 12, 2015 +12
Two false dichotomies. The first is that only taxes can pay for schools. The second is that only public schools can provide an education.
Bit of a stretch, but a third would be that schools equate to education. _________ Zephyr López Cervilla
Sep 12, 2015
Actually, tax-funded schools usually equate to (political) indoctrination, a rather effective method to increase the population of stupid people._________ X Rellix
Sep 13, 2015
+Ethan Boyle people migrated here voluntarily and their ungrateful descendants can migrate out just as voluntarily ;-) That's as voluntary an organization as it gets. The only thugs here are those refusing to pay their membership dues yet living off the benefits of the membership._________ X Rellix
Sep 13, 2015
+Van D. yet you are doing much better than the average Zomian or Somalian or Mexican for that matter. Like i said GTFO, this is a voluntary club, only willing members need stay, and those who do stay have to pay their fucking membership dues. You can vote your representatives to represent your values (as shitty as they may be). I would really like to see how your kind will survive in a place with your values - oh wait - it failed abysmally every time it was tried in history which is why it no longer exists anywhere lol ;-)_________ Zephyr López Cervilla
Sep 14, 2015
+X Rellix: "people migrated here voluntarily and their ungrateful descendants can migrate out just as voluntarily ;-) That's as voluntary an organization as it gets. The only thugs here are those refusing to pay their membership dues yet living off the benefits of the membership."
+X Rellix: "yet you are doing much better than the average Zomian or Somalian or Mexican for that matter. Like i said GTFO, this is a voluntary club, only willing members need stay, and those who do stay have to pay their fucking membership dues."
— Your fallacious argumentation had been already conveniently addressed and debunked 127 years ago (probably even earlier), decades before you or any of your statist-serf friends were even born: «The gist of his position—in fact, the whole of his argument—is contained in his second paragraph, and is based on the assumption that the State is precisely »…« a voluntary association of contracting individuals. Were it really such, I should have no quarrel with it, and I should admit the truth of Mr. Perrine’s remarks. For certainly such voluntary association would be entitled to enforce whatever regulations the contracting parties might agree upon within the limits of whatever territory, or divisions of territory, had been brought into the association by these parties as individual occupiers thereof, and no non-contracting party would have a right to enter or remain in this domain except upon such terms as the association might impose. But if, somewhere between these divisions of territory, had lived, prior to the formation of the association, some individual on his homestead, who, for any reason, wise or foolish, had declined to join in forming the association, the contracting parties would have had no right to evict him, compel him to join, make him pay for any incidental benefits that he might derive from proximity to their association, or restrict him in the exercise of any previously-enjoyed right to prevent him from reaping these benefits. Now, voluntary association necessarily involving the right of secession, any seceding member would naturally fall back into the position and upon the rights of the individual above described, who refused to join at all. So much, then, for the attitude of the individual toward any voluntary association surrounding him, his support thereof evidently depending upon his approval or disapproval of its objects, his view of its efficiency in attaining them, and his estimate of the advantages and disadvantages involved in joining, seceding, or abstaining. But no individual to-day finds himself under any such circumstances. The States in the midst of which he lives cover all the ground there is, affording him no escape, and are not voluntary associations, but gigantic usurpations. There is not one of them which did not result from the agreement of a larger or smaller number of individuals, inspired sometimes no doubt by kindly, but oftener by malevolent, designs, to declare all the territory and persons within certain boundaries a nation which every one of these persons must support, and to whose will, expressed through its sovereign legislators and administrators no matter how chosen, every one of them must submit. Such an institution is sheer tyranny, and has no rights which any individual is bound to respect; on the contrary, every individual who understands his rights and values his liberties will do his best to overthrow it. I think it must now be plain to Mr. Perrine why I do not feel bound either to pay taxes or to emigrate. Whether I will pay them or not is another question,—one of expediency. My object in refusing has been, as Mr. Perrine suggests, propagandism, and in the receipt of Mr. Perrine’s letter I find evidence of the adaptation of this policy to that end. Propagandism is the only motive that I can urge for isolated individual resistance to taxation. But out of propagandism by this and many other methods I expect there ultimately will develop the organization of a determined body of men and women who will effectively, though passively, resist taxation, not simply for propagandism, but to directly cripple their oppressors. This is the extent of the only "violent substitution of end for beginning" which I can plead guilty of advocating, and, if the end can be "better and more easily obtained" in any other way, I should like to have it pointed out. The "grand race experience" which Mr. Perrine thinks I neglect is a very imposing phrase, on hearing which one is moved to lie down in prostrate submission; but whoever first chances to take a closer look will see that it is but one of those spooks of which Tak Kak tells us. Nearly all the evils with which mankind was ever afflicted were products of this "grand race experience," and I am not aware that any were ever abolished by showing it any unnecessary reverence. We will bow to it when we must; we will "compromise with existing circumstances" when we have to; but at all other times we will follow our reason and the plumb-line.»
— Benjamin R. Tucker. Resistance to Taxation. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 (18) [whole no. 96] p. 1.
[document no. 597]archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n63/mode/2up fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/resistance-to-taxation library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797
URL source G+ post: plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/TAeDeKX6B6g PS:
You see, your rhetoric is more than a century old. You are just parroting Mr. Perrine's suggestions._________ X Rellix
Sep 14, 2015
+Zephyr López Cervilla glad to see we've been winning the argument for 127 years and counting ;-) if only the anarchists actually created atleast a small city reflecting their values successfully one could take them seriously in these 127 years ;-)_________ X Rellix
Sep 14, 2015
+Daniel Buchner as my earlier posts indicated - just like any voluntary country club would expect you to exit its premises (forcibly if required) if you don't pay your membership dues - you have the right to GTFO this country club to Zomia or Somalia or wherever the fuck else and you will not be shackled or kidnaped or caged (at least not by this country). I say good riddance and don't come crawling back ;-)_________ Zephyr López Cervilla
Sep 14, 2015
The point is that none of those "country clubs" has any more legitimacy to claim sovereignty over a particular territory than anybody else.
If a bunch of robbers create a club to break into your home they are still a bunch of robbers.
As for Zomia and Somalia,
1. those territories are presently under control of several State governments, including the presence of UN forces in Somalia, under the command of a pan-statist organisation;
2. all Statists in the world are welcomed to move to Somalia to recreate their "country clubs" there;
3. Statists have no priority or precedence to claim sovereignty over any territory previously inhabited since they are in fact the newcomers there. In any case, they have no more legitimacy to claim sovereignty over more land than they can homestead than I have to claim sovereignty over the entire earth. The fact that you may have formed an organised gang doesn't confer on you any extra legitimacy to claim sovereignty over more extensive plots of land._________ X Rellix
Sep 14, 2015
+Zephyr López Cervilla so according to you a voluntary organisation cannot own or define it's property? The U.S is voluntary organization comprised of immigrants who became members willingly and the bounds of this organization's property was defined by its members._________ Zephyr López Cervilla
Sep 15, 2015 1:15 AM [UTC]
+X Rellix: "so according to you a voluntary organisation cannot own or define it's property? The U.S is voluntary organization comprised of immigrants who became members willingly and the bounds of this organization's property was defined by its members."
— You may define your property but not arbitrarily large. Otherwise I could define my property as the entire land of the earth and you would have to pay me a rent to occupy any plot of land.
Such claim may appear ridiculous or far fetched to you but that's precisely what a bunch of your "voluntary" organisations (around 200) are doing. There are claims of sovereignty of the governmental cartel over the entire land of the planet, including the most remote of the deserted islands and the Antarctic.
The question of the limits and the recognition of property was likewise already discussed by Benjamin Tucker and others. The following are excerpts of an article about such debate:«Spooner defended unlimited private land ownership and grounded his support of this theory on the homesteading axiom: "The right of property in material wealth is acquired, . . .in one of these two ways, viz.: first, by simply taking possession of natural wealth, or the productions of nature; and, secondly by the artificial production of other wealth. . . The natural wealth of the world belongs to those who first take possession of it. . . There is no limit, fixed by the law of nature, to the amount of property one may acquire simply by taking possession of natural wealth, not already possessed, except the limit fixed by (a person's) power or ability to take such possession, without doing violence to the person or property of others."»
…«Tucker charged Spooner with being a defender of unlimited land ownership since Spooner's proposition would allow that ". . .a man may go to a piece of vacant land and fence it off; that he may then go to a second piece and fence that off; then to a third, and fence that off; then to a fourth, a fifth, a hundredth, a thousandth, fencing them all off; that, unable to fence off himself as many as he wishes, he may hire other men to do fencing for him; and that then he may stand back and bar all other men from using these lands, or admit them as tenants at such rental as he may choose to exact."»
…«Tucker believed that "a man cannot be allowed, merely by putting labor, to the limit of his capacity and beyond the limit of his personal use, into material of which there is a limited supply and the use of which is essential to the existence of other men, to withhold that material from other men's uses; and any contract based upon or involving such withholding is as lacking in sanctity or legitimacy as a contract to deliver stolen goods."»
…«Much of Tucker's concern with the land problem was based on his apprehension of the monopoly problem. He is well known for his four-pronged attack on monopolies: land, banking, tariff, and copyright and patent. Tucker feared that the right of contract would be carried to an illogical extreme: ". . . It would be possible (under a regime of unfettered freedom of contract in land) for an individual to acquire, and hold simultaneously, virtual titles to innumerable parcels of land, by the merest show of labor performed thereon; . . . (and) . . . we should be forced to consider . . . the virtual ownership of nearly the entire earth by a small fraction of its inhabitants …"»
— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html
— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984
As for the US being a "voluntary organization comprised of immigrants who became members willingly", do you have any evidence to support such claim? For instance, did they voluntarily sign any document stating such thing?
If the US (or any other "country club") is a voluntary association, as Tucker pointed out, do its members have the right of secession? On the other hand, what happened to those who refused to become members? What happened to those who tried to secede?
In any case, "the bounds of this organization's property" must never exceed the bounds of the sum of the property of all its members because in order to share any property you must first own it._________ X Rellix
Sep 15, 2015 5:31 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla the U.S is not the entire earth but a well defined border where it's members are allowed to homestead. Property is not just about who discovered or claimed it - it was/is also about who can defend it - either in court or by force if an independent court is non existent. Morality must meet reality.
Yes the members of this club can secede but they cannot take land, water or air-space property as it belongs to the club and was provided for fair use as their own as members only.
Yes the members joined willingly (except for Natives and Blacks - another discussion altogether) - they had their representatives sign into the union._________ Zephyr López Cervilla
Sep 16, 2015 4:29 AM [UTC]
+X Rellix: "the U.S is not the entire earth but a well defined border where it's members are allowed to homestead."
— The entire land of earth is also a well defined border limited by the coastal lines.
I don't care if the US is not the entire earth or not. The US and the other governments have created a cartel to monopolise the entire earth. They have intentionally expanded their borders, to prevent anybody from living beyond their reach and control. They divided their booty by drawing the lines of their borders on a map.
And are allowed to homestead by whom? By themselves? They don't need their own permission to allow themselves to do anything.
+X Rellix: "Property is not just about who discovered or claimed it - it was/is also about who can defend it - either in court or by force if an independent court is non existent."
— Hence the reason why governments must be abolished, to prevent them from seizing others' land and property by force. What was taken away by force can be recovered by force.
+X Rellix: "Morality must meet reality."
— This isn't a matter of morality but of interest in self and convenience. For the sake of the welfare of the individual, governments must go.
The reality is that without the support and collaboration of the same individuals that the government oppresses, governments are powerless. The State is a fiction, we just have to persuade the oppressed to stop giving to governments their support.
+X Rellix: "Yes the members of this club can secede but they cannot take land, water or air-space property as it belongs to the club and was provided for fair use as their own as members only."
— If the members of such clubs couldn't take land, water or air-space property, they would have never been able to take that property with them when they left that other country club named British Empire. You're contradicting yourself.
+X Rellix: "Yes the members joined willingly (except for Natives and Blacks - another discussion altogether) - they had their representatives sign into the union."
— Nobody can sign anything in your name unless you have delegated such power through contract? Where are those contracts in which the members of your country club voluntarily agreed to delegate such power on their "representatives"? When and where did the factual members sign such documents?_________
URL source G+ post: plus.google.com/+NoelYap/posts/6ReWxpPqo6q ____________________