Current Events

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Malachi — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:17:20 GMT

I knew that consumption taxes would get used against me.

I'm not talking about your tactical position in this debate. "I knew the stormtroopers would penetrate my right flank but thats ok cause I live in the hq building."

you acknowledge that there are practical considerations to tax protesting. now I want you to acknowledge that everyone's situation is different. some people might be making so much money that they have to pay some tax. compliance or violation of the dictates of criminals is situational. whats his name above said he would eat shit. I wouldnt. I might give up some federal reserve notes if there was a personal threat. you might not. but my point through this whole discussion is that when you refuse to acknowledge the state you reduce the interactions to agents of the state, you realize that many if not most laws are unenforceable except in special cases. your information profile has a lot to do with whether you are a special case or not. that alone should tell you that the power elites care very much about public opinion, which gives lie to the idea that state power is something that can be taken for granted.

This wasn't "losing the plot," this was a comparison of one social construct to another; the word to the state. Communication of ideas, in either capacity, is people's acknowledgement of them. The philosophy of action comment was in regards to the idea of individuals acting versus collectives acting. it is obvious that individuals act, but the words (social constructs) that people affirm by their common use are the same concept as state power which people affirm by their acquiescence to an idea.

ok good. now I decline to acquiesce to that idea. henceforth any agent of the state who wishes to aggress against me or harm me in any way cannot use the state as a justification if they aggress against me, in order to justify it to me. I reserve the right to use tactical deception.

does that explain my position? its not a political stance, its individualist. it only applies when people want to deal with me.

isnt it voluntary already?

Not if you ask, 95% of the people who affirm the principle that it is a requirement. And, I'm not sure what the Code says anymore or how judges or lawyers would react to the question. But, I'm going with "no."

you opted out of taxes already, except for the aformentioned consumption taxes with white market businesses. taxes are voluntary if you can un-volunteer.

Subject dependent" refers to subjective perspectives, but how are words used? Intersubjectively. It doesn't matter that there is not an entity in nature that is "a word" or "the state" what matters is that people agree to recognize them. You can say that it doesn't exist, but you are just affirming a private language for yourself - which is I suppose rebellious. I liken PL in my mind to the stage of thinking before you attach words to describe it which is very different from the way you seem to say it.

I refuse to recognize the state. its the opposite of a private language, its the renunciation of someone else's attempt at a shared reality. the state isnt real to me because I dont recognize it. I am fully aware of the existence of agents of the state, and that their belief in this fictional state motivates theyr behavior to some extent. I know government exists, and I know the state is fiction.

Further, "economics" doesn't exist either, but people recognize so called "laws of economics"....because there are "necessary consequences" of ignoring them. Do you want to get into causality? Consequences must originate somewhere, no?

causality is where it is at. the verbal shortcut helps to avoid focusing on the proximal cause, acting man, and if you dig deeper I am still right. acting man is motivated by self interest. his belief in the state is an ideology that conflates his concept of self-interest with enforcement of what he considers to be the dictates of the state. thats the ultimate cause of state sponsored violence and thats what all this language and conditioning is designed to armor and camouflage.

economics laws are either descriptive or definitional. if they describe a logical (cause/effect) relationship, then good. if they are tautologous, then good as well. accepting one fiction does not obligate me to accept another.

thanks for replying, Aristophanes. youll see I'm not afraid of discovering that I am wrong. I am afraid of failing to discover that fact.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Aristophanes — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 23:38:21 GMT

opting out of the system means opting out of the system. acquiescence or defiance of laws is a situational proposition. do you pay sales tax?

I knew that consumption taxes would get used against me. i refer to income or labor taxes. Consumption taxes are already avoidable if you do not consume (or share things on the net).

you are scared to engage in it because you've taken such a "radical" position. My "statist rhetoric" was actually a "philosophy of action dilemma." You're just weak mentally and do not want to have to find "words" (that are all social constructs) to try and explain why the "state" (another social construct) does not exist. Any philosopher will tell you that you have taken two contradictory positions on a fundamental level.

really ari? really? are you really that threatened by my intellect that you have to lose the plot completely? youre smarter than this. now drop the derogatory remarks and tell me what contradictory positions I have taken.

This wasn't "losing the plot," this was a comparison of one social construct to another; the word to the state. Communication of ideas, in either capacity, is people's acknowledgement of them. The philosophy of action comment was in regards to the idea of individuals acting versus collectives acting. it is obvious that individuals act, but the words (social constructs) that people affirm by their common use are the same concept as state power which people affirm by their acquiescence to an idea.

I already explained how the state doesnt exist. your counterpoint consisted of vague allusions to works you have read outside of the austrian paradigm. wow I guess you showed me

Which, to me, is an idiotic thing to even say. Where do Mises or Rothbard say that states do not exist other than euphemistically. Bastiat says something like it, but in an satirical sense, i.e., non literal. ((Do "laws" exist?)) you are trying to take it literally and thus take some super radical extreme "I'm so different" position that I think is nonsensical. States exist because people affirm their existence through their behavior. I am not trying to compare the state to gravity, as a natural force that exists independent of people. Just the same as "God" exists beacuse people affirm it through their thoughts and behavior. In a physical sense it does not, but as far as society goes it does, it does. As you call it...dogmatic...

leaders and rulers are two different roles. leaders have followers, rulers have subjects.

pish posh.

history is full of individuals acting. the rest is smoke and balderdash.

Says you. and as you say I don't have good enough counterexamples. your opinion on this is balderdash. Is "cooperation" an extant thing?

he existence of social constructs is confined to the realm of ideas. anytime someone is forced or coerced into something, there is an acting man doing to force or coercion. thats what exists. this verbal shortcut actually takes the focus off of the criminal.

And how is power not a social contruct? How is coercion not a social construct? Force, I'll give you since it is a part of physics (you see? I am not just trying to be difficult).

isnt it voluntary already?

Not if you ask, 95% of the people who affirm the principle that it is a requirement. And, I'm not sure what the Code says anymore or how judges or lawyers would react to the question. But, I'm going with "no."

Also, malachi's assertion that states are fictions is kind of put to rest if people will not repudiate taxes.

see, youre a collectivist. you need other people to affirm your rejection of the state or it doesnt mean anything to you.

ha. We're talking about the state which is by its nature collectivist. Social constructs are necessarily collectivist. Meaning that "words" are collectivist institutions (we can have private languages - which you are positing that you do, but PL will get you nowhere in any field of "cooperation" with other humans). State power fits into this category. it has nothing to do with me or you it has to do with everyone that agrees to definitions of words.

And your propsition is false. Other people's renunciation of the state means nothing to me if they still pay taxes (hypocrites). I'm fine with my situation.

that power consists of the idea that there are necessary (or highly likely) consequences for non-payment of taxes. that idea is not an accurate representation of reality. state power consists of a system of ideas (or doctrine). since we see how it freaks people out to question these ideas, we can apply the label "dogma" here as well. state power is a dogma that is bound to fall because it isnt true.

I do not think we are in disagreement here. You are simply calling "dogma" what I am calling "social constructs." Yes, common usage of words is a form of dogma (look at how the FED defines money and credit - somehow money is not the same thing as credit; dogma or utilitarian justified social constructs).

no, it isnt in question because its just a measure of how deeply people subscribe to the dogma. its subject dependent. for you, state power is so great and ineffable that you brag about your decision to opt out of taxes. for me, it doesnt even exist.

"Subject dependent" refers to subjective perspectives, but how are words used? Intersubjectively. It doesn't matter that there is not an entity in nature that is "a word" or "the state" what matters is that people agree to recognize them. You can say that it doesn't exist, but you are just affirming a private language for yourself - which is I suppose rebellious. I liken PL in my mind to the stage of thinking before you attach words to describe it which is very different from the way you seem to say it.

Further, "economics" doesn't exist either, but people recognize so called "laws of economics"....because there are "necessary consequences" of ignoring them. Do you want to get into causality? Consequences must originate somewhere, no?

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Malachi — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 01:31:11 GMT

Also, malachi's assertion that states are fictions is kind of put to rest if people will not repudiate taxes.

see, youre a collectivist. you need other people to affirm your rejection of the state or it doesnt mean anything to you.

The power of the state, at its very core, is the power to extract money from people against their will.

that power consists of the idea that there are necessary (or highly likely) consequences for non-payment of taxes. that idea is not an accurate representation of reality. state power consists of a system of ideas (or doctrine). since we see how it freaks people out to question these ideas, we can apply the label "dogma" here as well. state power is a dogma that is bound to fall because it isnt true.

State efficiency might rise and fall, but its power is not in question

no, it isnt in question because its just a measure of how deeply people subscribe to the dogma. its subject dependent. for you, state power is so great and ineffable that you brag about your decision to opt out of taxes. for me, it doesnt even exist.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Malachi — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 01:25:17 GMT

No shit. I don't know if you know this, but I'm familiar with the literature on this site.

act like it then.

When you read more and more of the stuff "outside" of it, the more there is to consider.

do tell.

If opting out of believing in the fiction includes paying taxes, then you have only fooled yourself into thinking that you are independent of the system. You haven't opted out of anything. Taxation is the direct representation of people's acquiescence to a structure of power that intimidates them into "believing."

opting out of the system means opting out of the system. acquiescence or defiance of laws is a situational proposition. do you pay sales tax?

you are scared to engage in it because you've taken such a "radical" position. My "statist rhetoric" was actually a "philosophy of action dilemma." You're just weak mentally and do not want to have to find "words" (that are all social constructs) to try and explain why the "state" (another social construct) does not exist. Any philosopher will tell you that you have taken two contradictory positions on a fundamental level.

really ari? really? are you really that threatened by my intellect that you have to lose the plot completely? youre smarter than this. now drop the derogatory remarks and tell me what contradictory positions I have taken.

I already explained how the state doesnt exist. your counterpoint consisted of vague allusions to works you have read outside of the austrian paradigm. wow I guess you showed me.

Who wants to save the world? It is not a prerequisite that one's ambition is to save the world in order to be a leader. That is what utopian anarchists think. Most rulers, seems to me, want to rule. Not paying taxes is the direct representation of someone ignoring the leader's wish; it is a statement that one wishes to rule oneself. it is the most powerful form of disobedience (if you acknowledge the definition of that word, I don't know if power is a fiction that you'll admit the social construct of the word 'obedience' as having any merit in the real world) Social 'philosophers' are the worst.

leaders and rulers are two different roles. leaders have followers, rulers have subjects.

At any rate, I'm not gonna argue this point.

yes, I noticed.

history is full of "fictional stories" of states, being led and administered by individuals, "acting."

history is full of individuals acting. the rest is smoke and balderdash.

States simply are social constructs. Whether it be by consent (sentimentalist in my opinion), or by force, they exist.

the existence of social constructs is confined to the realm of ideas. anytime someone is forced or coerced into something, there is an acting man doing to force or coercion. thats what exists. this verbal shortcut actually takes the focus off of the criminal.

Stand up to the powers until taxation is voluntary.

isnt it voluntary already?

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Aristophanes — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:47:19 GMT

go to bed.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

HabbaBabba — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:42:18 GMT

You forgot geopolitics. Something about Turkey, maybe.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Aristophanes — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:39:21 GMT

We have freedom of speech in this country (right?). you're just a chump Habba. That's all.

All you have to do is read Thoreau, part of the American literary lexicon. He tells you that if you do not support the government that you should not fund it. And if you do, then you are a hypocrite. I'm pretty sure voluntarims is, like, based around voluntary behavior. How am I not in accord with that?

Also, malachi's assertion that states are fictions is kind of put to rest if people will not repudiate taxes. The power of the state, at its very core, is the power to extract money from people against their will. State efficiency might rise and fall, but its power is not in question (RE: caplan's book).

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

HabbaBabba — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:25:58 GMT

Exactly how stupid do you have to be to run around bragging about not paying taxes? Has someone taken up basketball?

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Neodoxy — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:16:03 GMT

Always knew you were a commie socialist.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Aristophanes — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:05:18 GMT

Yeah, my adovcation of tax protesting is totally a measure of my statism.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Serpentis-Lucis — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:14:51 GMT

Looks like Aristophanes has finally become a Statist.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Aristophanes — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 05:37:44 GMT

btw if you havent figured it out yet, the act of ruling is a continuing process. people's wants arent static, they are dynamic.

No shit. I don't know if you know this, but I'm familiar with the literature on this site. When you read more and more of the stuff "outside" of it, the more there is to consider.

If opting out of believing in the fiction includes paying taxes, then you have only fooled yourself into thinking that you are independent of the system. You haven't opted out of anything. Taxation is the direct representation of people's acquiescence to a structure of power that intimidates them into "believing."

that thing is reducible to the actions and decisions of individual human beings and the constraints imposed on them by reality. abstracting it into a boogeyman is statist rhetoric and doesnt help to understand things.

you are scared to engage in it because you've taken such a "radical" position. My "statist rhetoric" was actually a "philosophy of action dilemma." You're just weak mentally and do not want to have to find "words" (that are all social constructs) to try and explain why the "state" (another social construct) does not exist. Any philosopher will tell you that you have taken two contradictory positions on a fundamental level.

I'm not a collectivist. I don't wait for an entire people to decide whatever. I work on my own stuff. everybody wants to save the world when they cant even void their own bowels correctly.

Who wants to save the world? It is not a prerequisite that one's ambition is to save the world in order to be a leader. That is what utopian anarchists think. Most rulers, seems to me, want to rule. Not paying taxes is the direct representation of someone ignoring the leader's wish; it is a statement that one wishes to rule oneself. it is the most powerful form of disobedience (if you acknowledge the definition of that word, I don't know if power is a fiction that you'll admit the social construct of the word 'obedience' as having any merit in the real world) Social 'philosophers' are the worst.

At any rate, I'm not gonna argue this point. history is full of "fictional stories" of states, being led and administered by individuals, "acting." States simply are social constructs. Whether it be by consent (sentimentalist in my opinion), or by force, they exist. Stand up to the powers until taxation is voluntary. Until then states will continue to exist.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Malachi — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 04:19:46 GMT

If it wasn't real what is there to opt out of?

believing in the fiction.

If states can act (which they do to tax) how can they be fiction?

states dont tax. some people, criminal aggressors, call them agents of the state, collude to extort money from people. "the state" is their alibi. I dont buy that alibi.

If that is what you are saying then you are going to refer back to the indiviudals who have "meaningless" positions of ~~power~~ nothing that allow them to be convince others to exercise what exactly? i see no way of avoiding "power" existence. Collective power, when people do nothing or even encourage particular other people to act is very much a thing.

that thing is reducible to the actions and decisions of individual human beings and the constraints imposed on them by reality. abstracting it into a boogeyman is statist rhetoric and doesnt help to understand things.

Even if people legitimize a fiction, through institutions that people do not question or challenge, the "power" the legitimizing of the power makes it real. What is real is that people do not fight back in any way. This is the power. So while individuals, ultimately exercise what is known as state power, it is the collective non-encroachment of people that amounts to the "state" part of it.

none of which has anything to do with me. if you dont like people believing in a fiction you peel back the veil for them. so, discursive tears in the fiction. state power is always enforced by one or more individuals. I do not subscribe to their alibi.

Like it or not there has never been a point in history where an entire people has said, "eh, we don't want a state." People want to be ruled and the people who nkow how to do it, do.

I'm not a collectivist. I dont wait for an entire people to decide whatever. I work on my own stuff. everybody wants to save the world when they cant even void their own bowels correctly.

btw if you havent figured it out yet, the act of ruling is a continuing process. people's wants arent static, they are dynamic.

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Neodoxy — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 04:18:46 GMT

I just want to say that I adore the title of this thread. It's literally increased the quality of my day. +1 Malachi

Re: stratfor turns its bully pulpit towards ANARCHEEE1!1!1!111

Aristophanes — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 03:59:15 GMT

anarchy is impossible to escape. and I'm sure that if you were accosted by a minor criminal you would die or kill him before you gave up your wallet. but I wonder how it is that you think you know so much about me that I would not.

If you are saying here what I think you are saying then awesome.

you a fucking chickenhawk just like every other pussy taxpayer on this board.

lol you have assburger's tourettes, you cant stop shitting out your mouth.

What? I'm urban.

o is it real or can you opt out of the fiction and only deal with agents of the state?

If it wasn't real what is there to opt out of?

wrong. state power is a fiction. exposing the fiction weakens it, hence discursive repairs. do you even read the articles you link?

If states can act (which they do to tax) how can they be fiction? Or are you saying collective state power is a fiction? If that is what you are saying then you are going to refer back to the indiviudals who have "meaningless" positions of ~~power~~ nothing that allow them to be convince others to exercise what exactly? i see no way of avoiding "power" existence. Collective power, when people do nothing or even encourage particular other people to act is very much a thing.

Even if people legitimize a fiction, through institutions that people do not question or challenge, the "power" the legitimizing of the power makes it real. What is real is that people do not fight back in any way. This is the power. So while individuals, ultimately exercise what is known as state power, it is the collective non-encroachment of people that amounts to the "state" part of it.

Like it or not there has never been a point in history where an entire people has said, "eh, we don't want a state." People want to be ruled and the people who know how to do it, do.