Most people still take pride in being “law-abiding taxpayers.” It still gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that they “play by the rules,” in spite of the fact that “the rules”—as made up by so-called “law-makers”—have gotten continually more unjust, arbitrary, idiotic, and sometimes downright evil. Most of those who have been trained to respect and obey “authority” quickly get uncomfortable at the idea that they should pick and choose which “rules” to follow, and which “laws” should be broken, maybe even resisted. Most people don’t like to think about the fact that, throughout history, those who “played by the rules” were the ones who funded, created, and carried out mass injustice, oppression and murder. Pick any tyranny in history and ask yourself, were the “rule-breakers” the problem? No. The rule-makers and the rule-enforcers—those who claimed to act on behalf of “government” and “law”—have always been the biggest oppressors, thieves and murderers. Meanwhile, those who have resisted authoritarian injustice have always been labelled rule-breakers, criminals and terrorists.
So no, doing as you’re told, playing by the rules, and following the law, is usually not the way to be a good human being. Usually it is the way to enrich and empower the most evil people on Earth. Does that mean that I think that everyone should run off and ignore the “rules” against theft and murder, for example? Of course not. But the truth is, the arbitrary dictates that a bunch of politicians have declared to be “the law” are absolutely irrelevant to whether something is good or bad. Morality doesn’t change just because politicians did some “legislative” ritual. People should always strive to do what is right, whether or not it is “legal.”
People have no trouble agreeing with this when they are considering other times or other places. We all recognize that “laws” in favor of slavery, for example, or many of the “laws” which were enacted and enforced in North Korea, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, were illegitimate and immoral, and that it was good when people disobeyed and resisted such “laws.” Indeed, every July 4th many millions of American celebrate a large-scale illegal and seditious uprising by a bunch of “lawless,” “criminal” tax evaders and cop-killers. But few dare to apply the same standards and principles to the present.
Which brings us to the part that makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” very uncomfortable. Where is your “line in the sand”? How patently unjust do “the rules” have to be before you would feel right disobeying them? At what point, if any, would you even forcibly resist an oppression being done in the name of “law”? We all know—whether we like to think about it or not—that every “law” is a threat of violence from “government”: they are commanding you to behave a certain way, with the promise that if they catch you disobeying, they will send men with guns (“law enforcers”) to punish you. The ruling class doesn’t take kindly to those who don’t blindly obey their every whim.
With that in mind, do you have a “line in the sand”? Is there any point at which you would disobey and resist the “rules” made up by power-happy politicians? Yes, in some cases you may choose to obey out of self-preservation, just to avoid trouble for yourself. But there is a difference between that and feeling a moral duty to do whatever those who wear the label of “government” tell you to do. When would you choose to be the rebel, the “criminal,” the “terrorist,” by not bowing to the ruling class? Whether you like it or not—whether you are comfortable thinking about it or not—in the end there are really only two positions you can have:
1 - “Any injustice that is done in the name of law and authority, I will go along with. And I will not merely cooperate with it; I will fund it with my hard-earned money. I will not only allow, but will empower and enable those who wield political power to do absolutely anything they want, to myself, to my family, to my neighbors, to countless innocent strangers, without me lifting a finger to stop them. I am a proud, law-abiding taxpayer, and I will continue to set aside my own judgment and conscience in favor of blind, unquestioning obedience to my political masters."
2 - “At some point I will draw a line in the sand, a point beyond which I will not obey. At some point I will not cooperate with tyranny, I will refuse to finance injustice being inflicted upon my fellow man. And I will do this, knowing full well that the ruling class will send men with guns after me if they find out that I am not following their dictates. But I will disobey and resist nonetheless because I am a moral human being, and because I care about doing the right thing more than I care about having the approval of authority.”
Pick one. And if it’s the latter, you might want to decide now where your “line in the sand” will be.
Simplistic. Either 1 or 2. Got it. And 'government' is a them, not representatives that I help choose. Ok.
P.S. Yes I am aware of how many downvotes my comment will get. But I assume you're posting to engage the 'statists', right?
No, you don't help choose your rulers. And no, they aren't your "representatives." Does someone who represents you have the right to do things that you don't? Does YOUR representative have the right to boss you around and demand money from you, under the threat of caging you if you don't comply? And yes, sometimes it IS either 1 or 2. Either you will NEVER resist aggression done in the name of "law," or at SOME point you would resist aggression done in the name of "law." If you can describe a third option, I will be very impressed.
I'm not sure. Give me an example of a right that my representative has that I do not have. I can't think of one, I think they live under the same laws that I live under.
Maybe I am missing something on your 'boss around' comment. Does that mean something other than the 'uphold the laws' thing that's gotten such traction?
And as far as your 1 and 2 go they sound a lot like the old 'do you still beat your wife' question.
See, you've been trained to view the bossing around as "law enforcement," and trained to imagine that to be inherently legitimate and righteous, because of documents and rituals. It's not. The ruling class proclaims literally THOUSANDS of things you may not do, things you must do, amounts of money you must give them, or they send men with guns to hurt you. If you tried to do the same to them, they would kill you.
I'm still waiting for an option OTHER than: a) you would never resist, or; b) at some point you would resist.
I appreciate that differing views are not being met with anything other than honest debate. There is no ruling class (I am in the U.S.). Each of us have one vote. I don't agree with all of the laws. I try to follow them anyway. But again I disagree with your a/b question's validity. You're making us all into frogs in a pot of cold water and asking us at what temperature we'd be too uncomfortable to continue. You are equating resistance with being anti-government as opposed to being a part of it. I resist right now - I resist Trump with my vote and my voice and reason. I resist laws with which I disagree with my vote and my voice and reason. And I am doing it from within.
Of course, one could always leave if you really need a C for your A and B.
jsteck objects to one-or-the-other propositions, then, more or less, says 'love it or leave it'. Well done!
Can you kidnap people, for smoking a plant?
You might be voting to "legalize it", but can you actually do it yourself?
Can you legally do that as well, or is it only a privilege reserved for your "representatives"?
@jsteck what is it that gives you the right to give someone else permission to kidnapp someone for smoking a plant?
Jsteck, your "representatives" can exercise rights that you nor any individual has. Due to the belief in the myth of authority they can make rules without even the aproval of those that voted for them, let alone the consent of each individual it affects. And to make this worse these rules can be made regarding actions that cause no harm to others. Enforcement of which does cause harm through violence or threat thereof, and which is funded by theft, under threat of violence. By accepting and more so, by advocating this system by voting and willingly paying taxes, you fall under the category of amoral people that would have their will or that of their chosen masters forced upon other peaceful people. And as for the Muh Roads argument.... Private businesses actually build roads, and without govt extortion depleting the funds of all citizens, could be funded through VOLUNTARY contribution.
I vote for legalize it. But nice choice of words.
I cannot and neither can my representatives. The question was about rights that my representatives have that I do not.
Can you tax people and put them in a cage if they do not oblige?
@jsteck Why do people that don't understand anarchism always think we'll have dirt roads, no buildings, and no infrastructure? PEOPLE build things, not governments, and when you see roads today, they are built by the people funded by the money stolen from THE PEOPLE. Without Government roads would be built same as today, the difference being it would be built by a free market, voluntarily, and without theft.
I can choose to vote for or against laws that require taxation, same as my representatives. I can also drive on the roads that my taxes built. I've never been able to figure out how anarchists get around.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.” FBI Director James Comey, while discussing the charges dropped against Hillary Clinton.
If you want to do some great you
you should find a way where is no law at all, a way of totally freedom, way of the first man.
Yes, when you choose a representative he acts on your behalf. If you hire a lawyer to argue a speeding ticket, for instance, and he accepts a fine then you are beholden to his decision. That's how representatives work.
The "third option" you ask for is trial, up to the Supreme Court to determine if the law was constitutional or not.
Again, it was "No taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION."
If you cannot rob your neighbor or extort money from them, you don't have that right, tell me exactly how can you possibly have "your representatives" have extort money from them and call it tax?
If you cannot write some words on magic paper, and force your neighbor to obey, and if he doesn't, cage him or kill him, yourself, without any third party, because you don't have such rights, naturally, tell me how "your representatives", have such a right to "legislate" on your behalf?
And your rights don't come from a magic peace of paper, that you call "constitution". Your rights come from nature, by birth. Just like we did not make laws of physics and mathematics, (like gravity or speed of light etc) we did not make natural law regarding human interactions either. We rather, discover them. And live according to them.
The only natural law is survival of the fittest. Society is humans' species specific adaptation which made us the fittest. Government is what society has created to protect the weaker members of society.
The elected representatives are vested with more power because people have granted it to them. This was done because that power is necessary for protecting people. There is no magic here, these are simple principles that, to date, have worked. The great thing about our government is that you have a voice in who has that power.
The problem with Anarchy is that it does nothing to protect the "weak." (Well, that and the fact that the type of person who seeks power will still do so, and most likely violently, without a government to protect the people... Meaning that a few days after you removed our representative government you'd have a nice military dictatorship.)
Survival of the fittest does not mean what you think it means. It means the species who fit the environment best who survives, in the context of evolution and a species becoming instinct. For example, in a post nuclear war scenario, cockroaches are better fit to survive in a nuclear winter than humans. It is not even about inra-species conflicts.
Intra-species lethal violence is practically non-existent even in non-human species.
Government is not "what society has created". And it does not "protect the weaker members". That simply is an illusion. The poorest %10 of the population in a free market country is better off than average person in a big government socialist or communist country.
"The elected representatives are vested with more power because people have granted it to them."
You cannot grant anyone else something you don't have. If you do not have the right to extort money out of your neighbour by threats of violence, with the lie that you will protect them in return (it is called extortion or protection racket if non-state organizations do it)
Please tell me, how well the state worked to protect their people, when the state turned against their own people, killed their own citizens in democides. 263 million people have been mass murdered by their own government in 20'th century alone. This dwarfs even how many people of other countries governments killed, in 2 world wars (around 100 million).
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Please tell me, if governments protect the weak against the strong, who protects the weak from their own government?
There is very little difference between what you call "representative government" and "military dictatorship". Look at the democide list. They have all risen to power by democratic elections, in a representative democracy.
I had a completely voluntary trade today, where I bought some goods from a dude, and he delivered them.
Always gives me some joy. <3
Then you must be one of those extremist fringe kooks! Just think how much better the world would be if you had let politicians steal a chunk of that, and use it to buy bullets to rain down on civilians on the other side of the world! Isn't that how good people "give back to society"? (This comment is partly a test to see how many Steemit users grasp sarcasm.)
Yes, that sounds like me!
Steemit sarcasm test?
Interesting idea!
That goes perfect with our "We're going to free the shit out of you!"
Oh the anarchy!!!
We all died, from the unregulated pot I bought. Must have government!
Hey, Larken, forgive the off-topic, but I'm curious how the Mirror is coming. A lot of Steemians may not be familiar with it, and if you post about it you may be able to make some decent funding to put towards expediting its completion. :D
Yeah, I should do a post on Steemit about it, for all those who haven't heard of it. To answer your question, it's going very well. However, it seems the more I create for it, the more new stuff I think of to add to it. So the "finish line" keeps running away from me. Anyway, it will still be many months at least before it's finished.
As a software developer, I understand your position. Just remember that nothing is perfect at version 1. The best new apps tend to really suck on version 1, but people use them anyways because they solve a problem. And over time, they get better. Release early, release often. :)
Yeah, I kinda want to know more about The Mirror as well. :D
Yes id love to know how its coming along too
Eagerly awaited
I disobey the edicts every day. - Well, except, I don't hurt other people in the process.
Nice post, I appreciate the polarizing arguments to evidence something. I agree with the line we draw, but you show it a little like black and white, in reality we are grey.
Morality is such flexible concept, everything depends on the values of the person, society and context. Plus we have to acknowledge the role of the ego and desires in the decisition making creating bends and different interpretations of what we think morals are.
:)
@larkenrose, great post!
@jeeves, mind if giving me some related posts just like this one?
Feels like I voted yes on a bait post for an IRS audit
No way... is this THE LARKEN ROSE? If so it is a grand day.
I am glad as it is... I posted the following a few weeks ago saying it was one the single greatest speeches I think I have heard.
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@dwinblood/anarchy-awesome-speech-by-larken-rose-response-to-the-noam-chomsky-video-posted-a-bit-ago
I had in my notes that at some point I wanted to share this video of yours... now that you are here, I'll leave that to you and just be one who follows what you post.
I'll go into this in greater detail in my own post, but this is very poignant when it comes to the enforcers of law and policy: police and service members. In both of those fields, it's drilled into you constantly that you have very little free agency; you are there to follow orders, uphold the rules, and not question what you're doing. I've met a lot of guys in my time in the Army who were perfectly fine with that, despite their loud and vociferous objections to the current President of the United States. I wasn't, and that's why I'm not in it anymore. Eventually, you have to draw a line in the sand, and in the military, that means getting out, because staying in means you're going to have to compromise your ethics.
Is this a wake up call for all concerned?!?!
Key Point I don't think was mentioned.
As long as you don't turn your money into USD or other FIAT you don't have to pay taxes on it.
Stop taking your money out of crypto.
Support the crypto community.
Outside of crypto you should most likely 'play by the rules and contributing member of society' if you want to have a home and remain out of jail. That being said don't like the government start small and local in your communities and start changing peoples' mind. Spread positive influence. Eventually, 'those in power will be dead' their replacements minds' are still malleable, influence them.
Inside crypto you are responsible for yourself.
Be smart and no one should be able to take away your hard earned funds or jail for having them. We have a tool to take back out power as long as they don't take away the internet. At the end where you spend your money is really how you
vote.
Keep money in crypto right on!
@larkenrose Any thoughts?
What about option 3? What about those who do not value human life? That turn a blind eye to both option 1 and 2?
What about option 4? The ones who just don't care? Those that would simply live out their lives and ignore all?
Hi @larkenrose, just curious do you pay your taxes in the USA? In Ukraine most people don't it's not a big deal but I hear it is in the USA. Thanks.
As a citizen of former SU I would say that as long as government aloud you to leave the country anytime I am ok with everything else )
If even it aloud you to have private property- what else someone can claim? )
How odd. If someone came to your house, beat you up, stole your stuff, and made you do things... you would be okay with that as long as they let you LEAVE your own house whenever you wanted to?
Do they really do such things? Or they just want you to pay some taxes? )
I do not try not paying because I can see the purpose of doing it. As it was pointed down here, there are "taxes" on Steemit too https://steemit.com/steem/@arhag/where-does-the-money-come-from-a-look-into-the-economics-of-steem
Yes they really do such things. I had cops bust down the door, illegally enter a private residence, physically assault me when I was 9 months pregnant, kidnap my 18 month old child, and ultimately arrest ME and accuse ME of committing crimes.......
Apparently cops can do the same thing as criminals but not be considered criminals.. Aka rights I don't have
Sorry,man( I had similar experience concerning my family members, but they were not cops, just criminals
Good stuff.
Saludos desde Venezuela, espero ganar mucho dinero con esto.
Freedom seems to be a binary variable associated with each one of us, we are either free or not free, what the ruling elite tries to sell us is the idea of freedom with restrictions, conditions apply, we are free up to certain point, try smoking a plant that smells funny (cannabis) and we figure out we are not free.
Thank you for this awesome blog Larkin. I have disengaged with the Govt as much as I can at the moment, which includes not paying income tax for the last 6 years, I work under the table to avoid Govt intervention. I am against mandatory info gathering for census as well. I am in Canada.
Maybe you shouldn't have said where you were :)
excellent post @larkenrose - we just added our 2nd edition, come give us a read if you get a chance. Have upvoted and followed! Looking forward to seeing more!
I hate paying taxes but I hate jail more, so I'm still filing them every year.
Maybe you should look up Karl Lentz videos on YouTube - he hasn't paid taxes in over 20 years
His mother was a US tax auditor, and told him how to avoid paying tax - basically don't tell them how much you earned - ask them for a true and honest bill for the amount you owe, signed and dated - nobody working for the IRS will do it - 30 years in jail for them if the billed amount is wrong by even 1 cent
the only way this will work is if you have no assets for them to seize
Karl Lentz has a farm that is worth seizing - but the IRS has not done so
More on the idea of non self-incrimination:
Manley Sullivan was an auto dealer who supplemented his income by selling moonshine during prohibition. Since he could not report illegal income, he simply did not file a tax return. He was charged with willfully failing to file a tax return. He was convicted by a lower court, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, ruling that:
2.The language of the Fifth Amendment must “receive a liberal interpretation by the courts”
3.No one can be compelled “in any proceedings to make disclosure or give evidence which would tend to incriminate him, or subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures”
4.The Fifth Amendment “applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings”
Source: http://hwarmstrong.com/doojie/category/the-irs-and-self-incrimination/
There is nothing wrong with that, if someone points a gun at you and demands your money its in your best interest to pay up. Doesn't mean I'm not going to avoid those situations how ever possible and speak out against the crime
You being here is an irony you will never truly understand, but it's good that you are. People need to hear what you say.
why... Steemit was started by anarchists.
LOL :D
My fear -- based on years of observation and concomitant frustration -- is that the line in the sand for a significant majority in today's society will be drawn to the sound of the locks clicking shut.
Oh, I do "play by the rules". Instead of buying back these public debts (income tax and the likes), I have chosen to NOT buy them back, because it's obvious that I am being robbed.
Instead, I choose to use the "security of the person" so it can DISCHARGE these public debts the government likes to send my person every now and then. This is PERFECTLY legal, and moral. I know how to proceed, I know which LAWS gives me the RIGHT to do it. And as a result, the government just IGNORE this fundamental RIGHT.
The right to "Security of the person" is NOT what you might think it is. I do have PROOFS of what I am saying in my possession :P
Look up the LEGAL definition of the word "security". :D
I feel like the lines are already drawn within us all, and we are not sure when they will reveal themselves, but when the situation arises, for those with a spine, they come out clear and stubborn as day. I think we have to prepare for this though, and that things like this article will help certain individuals on that journey and in that process of discovery. Thanks as always for the solid content.
but the anonimity in the crypto space, will make way for a lot of people not to be paying taxes. unless the govenrment derives other mean of dealing with this new phenominum
Keep it up Larken, thanks to you and our community I came back to Steemit also. The platform is getting better and better.
Spot on my friend. Spot on.
Yay, @larkenrose is on steemit now! woo! I'm so happy to see you here :)
Take the cost of paying for a home and figure out how much money you made for;
-the State and Polis from extortion 15-95%
-your superiors and shareholders from greed 99.985%
-unnecessary licensee requirement in a society based on equality 5-15%
-Taxes on necessary supplies and commodities 5- 15%
and you will come to realize that by paying for your house you generated enough income for the royals to buy or loan hundreds if not thousands more.
Millions, if you consider reserve regulations. They can loan out an imaginary amount of 10 times any amount they have.
So don't pay tax anymore folks, hahahaha...
It seems to me that there are far too many people unwilling to draw a line. And it's surprising to me that most of those people won't even draw a line when it could negatively and violently impact their own family. There seems to be a great disconnect between what is actually morally impermissible on an individual basis and what constitutes a "just" application of government, particularly when the state's edicts do not conform with those same moral principles that individuals hold. There's no logical explanation for the conflicting beliefs. Perhaps fear of a lack of "safety" is indeed the biggest motivator of state advocacy and worship. Being afraid of bogeymen is certainly not a new phenomenon and it carries a lot of weight among the uninformed, which is a rather large segment of any given population.
Man. It's the content, it's the way you say it. I am in love with a dude..... fuck. I have seriously felt out of place in the world for a long long time. Lots of anarchist stuff on here, I just always had another image in my head when I heard it. Voluntaryism you introduced me to.... I thank you.
I love seeing your content here, Larken. :)
I would suggest using quotations marks less.
I believe we are so used to obey the rules and fearful if we don't so most of us will not disobey the law which our representatives are supposed to uphold. I do agree that once our representatives are elected they become the other guy who decides for us because we gave them the right to do so.
However there may come a time when our elected representatives are not acting in our best interest but because they have the power its difficult to object as they have the upper hand and have the law on their side to arrest or prosecute you based on our laws that have been formulated over the past hundred of years. Someone said that when there is an election it is Democracy and once the election is over we live in a Dictatorship because we gave away our right to decide.
I agree there has to be accountability and that the people representing us should listen more to the majority. There is however one problem there that most people are to lazy to get involved and would rather put up with it before they rebel. Because for most of us life is good and we have an easier time criticizing than take action and make a real change.
In old Rome the politician practiced bread and circus for the people so they would not get involved in politics and decision making and we have the same scenario happening here. We have all sorts of entertainment and fast food to satisfy us all, so why should we rebel if life is comfortable?
If we lived in an oppressive country and feared for our lives and lacked the privilege of free speech I could see how people would be more likely to react against their oppressors and take action.
Having rules and people to carry out the uncomfortable task to get us all to behave and follow the agreed upon laws is the beauty of living in a Democracy. With anarchy and the removal of the laws and the rules that make us civilized is not as utopian as you may think. Every man for themselves would not really improve our lives so I would say that until we have a better option I would choose option 1 where we have laws and agree to obey them until a better system comes into action. Our quest for a better system is still a noble quest and should still be pursued but we cant demolish what we have until we have a viable alternative to replace it with.
I actually just posted an article about another Executive Order for the martial law plans. Just chalk up another tidbit for NDAA, REX84 and all the other goodies that go along with it. https://steemit.com/steemit/@derrick1974/another-executive-order-making-us-the-enemy
It seems like you are saying that people that choose to obey the law are conformist? I would have valued some kind of solution other than people just choosing what laws to break. As far as someone that is elected representing your values and opinions, I have always thought the one that lined up most closely was the one that would get my vote. It would be ridiculous to think that one person could possibly represent each persons opinion with all the differing opinions out there. So, in an elected office one would have the interest of the majority in mind. This idea that currently has everyone's attention, that some small facet (a few percent) of society dictating what is OK and what is not to the majority is a joke and eventually will come to an end. Nice post though, I would have liked some ideas on solutions, pointing out problems is the easy part that anyone can do.
An elected representative would only be able to do the things that you, yourself, have the power to do.
If these people stayed within that realm, they could never do any of the following:
Why?
Because neither you nor I have any right to do the following:
So far as any political law does any of the above, it shows that the one(s) enacting it are stepping beyond the bounds of their proposed authority.
A right can not be voted away by a majority. Nor can any majority grant themselves rights that they do not have individually.
Let me preface by saying that I am pro-small government. When the federal government has 6 million (non-military employees) with no product, taxes are their form of revenue. Where in the private sector you are asked to do more with less to be profitable, seems like the opposite happens in government. Now I am happy all these people that work in the public sector have jobs, I just wish there was more accountability/responsibility given they are making their living at others expense. Here is a Facebook post I had a week or so ago that I think sums up my stance.
If someone owned a company that constantly came up below expectations, everything cost more than estimated, all departments were overstaffed, and was constantly borrowing money to stay open... The owners would take action. For example, the CEO would be fired, people further down the chain would be replaced, positions would be eliminated, and refined processes would be put in place to increase efficiency (just to name a few things). Basically, do more with less to reduce the cost of running the business. If things persisted, the company would prove to be dysfunctional/not profitable and be shutdown. Please explain why these same principles don't apply to government, we are the owners. Every single public employee is paid via our taxes. Now we have a candidate saying I am going to raise taxes, which just means more employees not hitting the bar... Right now the total federal government employee workforce (non-military) is about 2% of the population. That is 6 million employees! A 6 million employee outfit and I can't name one thing they do efficiently. Example, how is it UPS and FedEx can turn a profit, but USPS is constantly over budget and needs more money every few years? They do the same thing!
Huge bump when I voted, glad to see it for you.
I obey the Law. Do no harm. I believe that people like you like to think that makes people like me radical. I let others judge how that works, I don't vote for some silver tongued liar to sell scams to destroy established corporate interests' opponents.
Solutions are what politicians sell. The simulcra of solutions. When in fact they just make patches for the short term bad results of the last set of rules they made. And on it goes.
If you want someone to give you solutions, maybe there's some grey stuff in between your ears going to waste.
It is pretty funny that almost whole bitcoin area isnt taxed.
Using this way of thinking, all of us are criminals- because we use bitcoin and steemit right?
I like to gamble sometimes.
So if i use bitcoin casino, and gamble my money there I am a bad person, only because governement is not smart enought to collect taxes out of it?
According to a friend, whose brother works for the IRS. Bitcoin only becomes traceable/taxable when you convert it to USD (for now). They have gone after people blatantly breaking the law (drug dealers for example) who are holding a lot of BTC. We will know when that first audit hits and someone is made an example of.
Yeah , but they won't track you have bitcoins just like that.
They will only for some reason, for example if they will get an info you are using bitcoins.
It is obvious that if you get a lot of money on your bank account, IRS will meet you .
John and I believe everyone has there own path of resistance just like everyone has there own path through life. That being said if your not willing to put up with discomfort or inconvience to resist goverment and enjoy more freedom you will further the intrest of tyranny. Have you checked out our crazy path of resistance Larken?
https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@lily-da-vine/on-the-run#
https://steemit.com/fugitives/@lily-da-vine/the-border-crossing
"every July 4th many millions of American celebrate a large-scale illegal and seditious uprising by a bunch of “lawless,” “criminal” tax evaders and cop-killers."
Remember the battle cry? "No taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION."
We are represented, we have a voice in the government and we can change the laws. Is every law just? No, but that does not automatically mean government is useless or evil, it means people make mistakes. The country was founded on people having a VOICE in government, not on a lack of government.
You aren't represented. You are given a limited choice to choose from to "represent" you whether they truly hold your beliefs or not. Then you are completely at their mercy for whether or not they actually follow through with their promises. Even if they did follow through, the others who oppose aren't represented.
One of the core principals that makes government evil is that, at least in the U.S. , it is based on delegating rights and abilities to someone that you don't have yourself. The laws after the fact are irrelevant.
Great article, love the way you worded it. I look forward to reading more of your articles. I just signed up for Steemit today and i'm still figuring it all out.
As always @LarkenRose a good read :) two thumbs up!
@larkenrose I really appreciate everything you post. I look forward to seeing more from you and I always send people in your direction when the conversation of anarchy and voluntaryism grows beyond my pay grade.
I think you're spot on. There are some instances when absolutes do apply.
A succinct and well-written article, Larken. As is often the case, you have managed to walk the fine rhetorical line between sounding aggressive and sugar-coating uncomfortable truths for the reader. Keep up the great work.
That's one way to over-simplify history.
By all means, be rebellious against evil, but please use some ratio while you're at it.
Larken.... I hope you see this. Some of the thinking I got exposed to in your opening post and the research into voluntaryism after inspired this thought. not super well written but inspired... I would value your thoughts.
Voluntaryism University
In the UK the problem si everyone wants to claim the high moral ground but barf at the idea of paying tax for it.
be like water