Freedom actually has nothing to do with income. In true freedom no one owes you anything. They also cannot force anything upon you. This does not mean we cannot voluntarily assist each other. We tend to do this naturally when we do not have a force pitting us against each other. Universal Basic Incomes biggest flaw is if it is strapped to anything resembling a government. The government doesn't produce anything except wars, and waste. It has no product of it's own. I suppose you could consider laws/rules (aka forcing the will of one or more people upon others) as a product of government as well. We are nearing a time where technology may prove sufficient to offer something like UBI without the need of a government. I wrote about that as part of my optimistic view of the future, and I likely touched upon it as well in my more pessimistic/realistic thoughts on the future. I know I've spoken about UBI in other posts. I am very much a voluntaryist. I believe in applying and adhering to the NAP as closely as I can, but I also realize that I must take a larger view as some people may move against me from far away and gain momentum and by the time they get close enough to me to see them it would be too late to defend myself. This is a challenge. One thing we don't want is the government doing UBI. They can only accomplish that by debt, or by forcing others to pay for it. They literally have no other way of doing it. Government cannot give you anything for free. Someone pays.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Actually there is another way. It's called the Alaska Model.
You keep mentioning Alaska. The checks people get paid there yearly is a small fraction, like 1/10th or 1/12th of what would actually be needed to pay for people's basic needs. That's completely ignoring all the other economic problems involved too.
This is interesting. I gave it a cursory look, but want to give it a more in depth look and let it bounce around in my head for awhile before I commit. Initially the idea of a Tax implies a government. Tax is force. It is not something you can voluntarily choose not to pay without being penalized, thrown in jail, or possibly killed in the process. It is therefore force. It may be coercive force for the most part until resisted, but it is not voluntary and it is force. So having taxation as a component implies a force. It also still IS forcing others to pay for it. So it's not really different. Just a different form of taxation.
Though there is some interesting ideas in the document so like I said I do want to read it in more depth and give it a chance to SINK IN. I may change my mind. ;)
Please do read it. It's collectivist garbage. The basic economic principles still apply. There's no way to get what they want without someone paying for it. They want the "rich" to pay for it. That's the "solution."
They want to take from some to give to others. It really is that simple. I'm "rich" because I worked my ass off all my life to be successful. I don't "deserve" my wealth. All those people around me living in debt and way beyong their means who have never worked hard to learn a valuable skill in the market? Nah, they deserve better. I need to pay them....
Yeah, right.
Yeah, I do intend to read it again today. I suspected that was likely to be the case as soon as it started seeming to head those routes and especially when it started relying upon taxation. Yet, I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt until I read it and thought about it for awhile as it does have some new perspectives I've not seen before. Thus, I need to let those new ideas sift around for a bit in my head.
Wow, opt out and voluntary, ehh? I'll have to ask my brother-in-law, who's a tax attorney for the IRS, about that. He'll have a hearty laugh.
No kidding.
Losing the argument, ehh?
I am not. Yet I do think you may be. Which is why I haven't bothered to respond in depth to you.
You are choosing to interpret in a light that allows you to attack rather than trying to consider what a person may be saying that would not make that a negative.
You see. You painted it as EXACTLY the opposite of why I stated it.
I stated it so I was clear that I can be wrong, and thus like any human might change my mind. ;) I also made it pretty clear there was some new stuff in the document I wanted to think about for awhile.
There was no "Some taxation is force"...
Why would there need to be?
So you want to free yourself - by stealing from others? Noble.
The oxygen must be pretty thin up there in Alaska. You feeling light headed?
Is Judge Anna's work what the sovereign citizen movement come from?
Option 3; Im asking because I don't know anything about it aside from some people talking about it recently. Since you provided the links i am assuming you do know, hence im asking you.
Do you know where I can find more information about her & her associates work (other than the links you provided), that is not provided by a someone who claims to be a sovereign citizen or from someone trying to smear her work?