I'm looking for true voluntaryist men and women who are walking the talk by being committed to taking zero-stolen-stuff.
PLEASE help me find them/you.
Some are obvious, but please don't assume I know the ones you do.
PLEASE ask the ones you know if it is OK for you to give me their names.
Please message me in any way convenient to you.
Peace.
Been hearing forever that "We all paid in so we should all try to get back what we can."
Please tell me some other reasons if you can. I forget most of them.
In resent times "libertarians" started saying they wanted to take stolen stuff to "help collaps the system."
My response has been that if that's truly why you are doing it, why not give away all that you take?
This week I had a "Liberty" person tell me its OK to take "entitlements" and other stolen goodies from gov because --- get this --- "It doesn't come from tax payers anymore because, they're just printing money." Wow! Liberty folks sure are getting creative with excuses to take more and more. Now, stealing through inflation is said (by smart "Liberty" folk) to be the "NEW OK" reason?
THANKS!
Yea, I was needing more inflation. :(
Not sure how many more excuses I can take.
I'm thinking its getting near time for me to give up. :-/
Your right John, it's time to get your free Rascal from the gooberment!
(http://www.thelostogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rascalsduo-450x337.jpg)
The self selected group of folks that call themselves libertarians, anarchist, voluntaryist or whatever are not necessarily any better or worse than the rest of the population at being consistent in the application of their beliefs.
I've seen a lot of fair weather freedom folk come breezing through. Often the most vocal are some of the first to abandon the principled course.
We are trying our best to keep our souls and survive the tough road we've chosen. You are among friends and fellow travelers. :)
I've thought about it long enough and have made up my mind. I have ZERO interest in (even looking at) whatever numbers the evil fedgov says I'm "entitled" to.
I WAS entitled to resist their stealing from me, but I didn't very effectively resist. I paid - non-stop - for well over 30 years.
I am NOT now entitled to have them start stealing from others for me.
I think we all know there is ZERO money in any so-called "trust funds." EVERYTHING that was stolen from us has been spent.
NEWS FLASH: There is NOTHING LEFT! There is no surplus. They have a deficit.
Whatever is stolen from us today is already spent.
Whatever is doled out today (on credit) will be stolen from others in the future, and stolen through inflation today.
I've been told that there are some things one must do if one needs to in order "to survive."
My answer is, "Treading on others is not something I'm willing to do "to survive."
Throwing away my principles (if I "needed to") to gain a longer life would not be a life worth living - for me.
And if I ever change my mind PLEASE remember you are "entitled" to resist me.
and if you get the printed money then I guess you are getting some of the goodies
do you mean using FRNs?
FRNs are another one of the ways we are stolen from
its one of the ways they steal what we've earned - - - particularly savings, pentions, etc
I was thinking that if you are taking payments from the Feds I guess you are part of the printing process in some ways.
what if i stop taking FRNs, but I'm still giving away the ones I've earned in the past?
funny
Quote from: John on April 23, 2012, 06:44 PM NHFT
I'm looking for true voluntaryist men and women who are walking the talk by being committed to taking zero-stolen-stuff.
PLEASE help me find them/you.
You will have a very difficult time finding these people—they probably can't even leave their own houses. And since you live on
U.S. Route 4, I know you can't. :P
Hmm, haven't posted on this forum in a while—but I saw this thread, which is a continuation of a conversation some of us recently had in person in Grafton, so I thought I'd jump in. ;D
Quote from: John on April 23, 2012, 07:24 PM NHFT
Been hearing forever that "We all paid in so we should all try to get back what we can."
Please tell me some other reasons if you can. I forget most of them.
In resent times "libertarians" started saying they wanted to take stolen stuff to "help collaps the system."
You won't ever collapse the system this way. The only thing that more people using government services will do is convince the bureaucrats that they should provide us with
more services.
Quote from: John on April 23, 2012, 07:57 PM NHFT
I've thought about it long enough and have made up my mind. I have ZERO interest in (even looking at) whatever numbers the evil fedgov says I'm "entitled" to.
I WAS entitled to resist their stealing from me, but I didn't very effectively resist. I paid - non-stop - for well over 30 years.
I am NOT now entitled to have them start stealing from others for me.
I think we all know there is ZERO money in any so-called "trust funds." EVERYTHING that was stolen from us has been spent.
NEWS FLASH: There is NOTHING LEFT! There is no surplus. They have a deficit.
Whatever is stolen from us today is already spent.
Whatever is doled out today (on credit) will be stolen from others in the future, and stolen through inflation today.
How does a thief spending the loot alter the victim's right to restitution? If a person spends money that they stole before the victim has a chance to attempt recovery, are you saying that the victim just
loses his money, and that's it? That further attempts at extracting restitution are now immoral for some reason?
How does the fact that a thief will steal again, ostensibly to cover you recovering your stolen money, affect your right to make such recovery? Is a person not
entirely responsible for their own actions? If the thief
chooses to steal from a third person to cover your recovery, is the thief himself not
entirely responsible for his choice to steal again? To say that you are responsible for the thief's continued theft is to deny the idea of total absolute personal responsibility—and by extension, absolute self-ownership—is it not?
you lost me somewhere at the end
using the word restitution in connection with the government thugs just got confusing :)
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 29, 2012, 07:18 PM NHFTAnd since you live on U.S. Route 4, I know you can't. :P
Currently, I'm forced to pay the monoply govgang for Route 4 (and roads in general) via gas taxes - but at least I ALWAYS get the govgang's "protection" when I use "their" roads. Yup, lots of men with guns nd badges out there on the badlands=roads. :( I say let's get the govgang off of "our" roads...
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 29, 2012, 07:45 PM NHFTThe only thing that more people using government services will do is convince the bureaucrats that they should provide us with more services.
I say similar stuff all the time. Most people don't seem to even want to hear it.
Pretty damned circular, methinks. My part is to get off of the stinking evil treadmill whenever I can.
Again: I don't claim to be pure, but I do want to keep moving towards being more pure than I am.
I heard a news story this week that fits the discussion of this thread perfectly.
Curt Shilling and his game company.
Curt was very vocal regarding government bailouts previously speaking out at all the Republican venues and campaigning against Obama.
That was then...
Now after taking $75 million from tax payers and blowing it so bad that he bounced a $1 million check he's now pushing to get more money from the government.
http://news.bostonherald.com/jobfind/news/technology/view/20120517curt_schilling_is_mum_on_his_pitch_bailout_talkwith_ri_bigs_held_in_secret/
Here's a guy who made millions pitching for the Red Sox and millions more from advertisement deals and publicity. Here's an idea... how about he risk his own money!
And for the record I'm a bit mixed on this story because while I'm very troubled by the hypocrisy of someone who claims to be for smaller government and against bail outs who then turns around and demands more for himself... on the other hand as a Yankee fan I love it when current or former Red Sox players come off looking like asses.
Question - If somebody goes to jail, should they eat the food provided?
not if they value their health :)
can you imagine if you tried to stay away from anything the government claimed as theirs?
you can't go near roads (since they claim way out on both sides)
John cannot go forwards or back (hwy 4 and the railroad bed)
the LZ probably puts out some carbon into the air ... which algore owns
Bob's windmill and the other Bob's suncollector can be seen from Fed satellites
but it does make sense to me to try to keep untangling yourself from the Feds.
now with my current job the government gave me a license ..... does that now mean they are mixed up with all my monkeybusiness and monkeywrenching?
hey btw John ..... did the government every decide that they could leave the church building alone and let you keep it up?
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 24, 2012, 04:37 PM NHFT
Question - If somebody goes to jail, should they eat the food provided?
I think I should not.
Some might even recall when I was preparing to face their trail against me for "speeding" and I was telling the police (and was quite prepared to tell the judge) that I will certainly never give them money for something I didn't do, part of the prep. was my preparation to fast while in jail.
I recall that I actually began my fast at midnight on the day of court.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 28, 2012, 12:11 PM NHFT
not if they value their health :)hey btw John ..... did the government every decide that they could leave the church building alone and let you keep it up?
nope. caesar always thinks he's God... :(
On a serious note: a fast, or hunger strike, is much harder than it sounds. Many have proclaimed it, fewer have actually tried it, and almost no one, statistically speaking, ever made it to the point of needing medical attention.
I respect anyone who declares they're on a hunger strike, if they actually are. Most aren't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike
many mean to ..... but then the evil fed jailers force feed them through a tube
The alternative to eating tax-paid jail food, is relying on money from the outside so you can purchase food from the commissary/canteen.
Not much you can do about living in tax-paid accommodations, though. You'll be forced to wear at least some of the clothing, but the sheets and mattress are optional.
seems like we can learn from peaceful resisters of evil governments in the past
I myself refused any bologna that was not served on silver platters
Quote from: John on April 23, 2012, 06:44 PM NHFT
I'm looking for true voluntaryist men and women who are walking the talk by being committed to taking zero-stolen-stuff.
PLEASE help me find them/you.
Some are obvious, but please don't assume I know the ones you do.
PLEASE ask the ones you know if it is OK for you to give me their names.
Please message me in any way convenient to you.
Peace.
only 1 person PMed me to say he is trying to move in this direction.
hmm
I think it's not entirely clear what direction that is, and you might get a stronger response if you clarified it more.
For example, as you noted, you're forced to pay taxes on any gasoline you purchase and you do drive on the roads which the government builds and maintains.
I think that's entirely reasonable; if you're forced to pay for something, you have every right to use it.
But might not someone make the same argument with regards to any other "service" that the government provides?
I think that the first test must be whether what you're getting costs more than what you've been forced to pay. If so, then you would clearly be taking from others, and that must provide a solid "cap" on the level of "service" you obtain.
Below that level, though, you'll find a lot of arguments in a lot of different directions. You made one in support of using the roads, for example.
So, I think the best bet is to clarify what sort of things you think are acceptable, and what sort of things you think are not (either by simply presenting your opinions, or by asking for discussion) and then ask who will adhere to that particular standard.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 15, 2012, 08:47 AM NHFTI think that the first test must be whether what you're getting costs more than what you've been forced to pay. If so, then you would clearly be taking from others, and that must provide a solid "cap" on the level of "service" you obtain.
How do you determine the cost of a government service?
As I see it there are two types of costs... those that change depending on how many people use a service and those that are flat regardless of how many use it.
Roads are for the most part a flat cost so if it costs say $100 for a section of road it will cost that much regardless of 1 or 100 people using it. Yes there is wear due to usage but in the case of roads weather does far more damage then passing cars.
Then you have something like welfare in which you directly take money and more people taking results in more money being taken.
I suppose it could be argued that there is a 3rd type that is a mix of the two. A library for instance. The library is going to have a fixed cost no matter what but if demand increases enough it justifies the need to hire additional staff which increases the cost.
Also how you "pay" is also broken down in two different ways. There are taxes you can avoid and those you can't. There are also taxes that would take what most people would consider extreme measures to avoid.
Quote from: lildog on July 16, 2012, 08:30 AM NHFTAs I see it there are two types of costs... those that change depending on how many people use a service and those that are flat regardless of how many use it.
Roads are for the most part a flat cost so if it costs say $100 for a section of road it will cost that much regardless of 1 or 100 people using it. Yes there is wear due to usage but in the case of roads weather does far more damage then passing cars.
Then you have something like welfare in which you directly take money and more people taking results in more money being taken.
I suppose it could be argued that there is a 3rd type that is a mix of the two. A library for instance. The library is going to have a fixed cost no matter what but if demand increases enough it justifies the need to hire additional staff which increases the cost.
Any of them are that "3rd type." A road built for ten cars per day costs a lot less than a road built for a thousand cars per hour. Providing "welfare benefits" to ten individuals entails much less overhead than coordinating payments to a thousand recipients, but beyond some point, the per-capita overhead costs go down (economies of scale).
In any case, if someone consumes a thousand gallons of fuel per year, and pays $0.30 per gallon in fuel taxes, then it's safe to say that the $300/yr paid is going to exceed that individual's "share" of the construction and maintenance costs of the roads. So it would be safe to say that John is being reasonable when he drives his car on the road. He's certainly paid more for what he's "using" than it's actually worth.
On the other hand, if someone who's barely ever paid any taxes, turns around and accepts a grant of $1M to start a business, that would not be reasonable Some business that's paid $10M in taxes this year, would be far more able to easily justify accepting $1M back...
There's so much complexity that determining actual costs (and actual payments - with all the various taxes, no one really knows how much he's paid) would be nearly impossible, but there are certainly cases in which the situation is obvious.
Quote from: John on July 14, 2012, 10:56 PM NHFT
only 1 person PMed me to say he is trying to move in this direction.
hmm
Perhaps many are not interested in sticking out their neck for a list. Others are discussing how someone lives taking ZERO. Purity is not an option... although that is no excuse to not minimizing our connections to what we don't want to be a party to.
I think your efforts are valuable, and with adjustment to the needs of the community, likely to further what you obviously stand for. :) 8)
Some event that coincides with the Grafton Apple Festival, that commemorates efforts you admire would be something we would get behind. :glasses1:
I agree with all of you. :)
I would love to walk that path, but the problem is that the taking won't stop just because you don't hold your hand out to the takers. The taking is the problem, not the receiving.
My opinion is that the taking will only stop when there isn't anything left worth taking, not when people stop receiving what was taken.
I can't really blame a slave for accepting crumbs from the master. It's when slaves start helping the master beat the other slaves that gets me.
Do what you can to survive. If we have enough liberty lovers left standing when its over, we can build what we want.
Quote from: Helio on September 21, 2012, 06:34 PM NHFT
I would love to walk that path, but .......
I can't really blame a slave for accepting crumbs from the master. It's when slaves start helping the master beat the other slaves that gets me.
Do what you can to survive. If we have enough liberty lovers left standing when its over, we can build what we want.
If it is right ... do it. We should not do something wrong temporarily.
How does one avoid breathing in air that was once exhaled by Caesar?
The government made the air
And Al Gore invented breathing...
gov thugs probably do more to pollutute God's air (and water and ground) than all other unnatural causes - combined.
Quote from: John on November 24, 2012, 11:50 AM NHFT
gov thugs probably do more to pollutute God's air (and water and ground) than all other unnatural causes - combined.
"Your car is poisoning the planet! We must regulate you!"
"Ignore the effects of warfare."
(http://aibob.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/thehistorynasaspaceshuttleprogram035.jpg)