Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

I added these three paragraphs to the explanation section of the amendment (in the top post).
ALL of the society's problems can be traced to, and are made worse or made possible by, taxation. All taxation is THEFT by strict definition of the term. Thus taxation is institutionalize robbery, and institutionalized violence and aggression. The loony idea that the rules of morality and justice do not apply to government is the core of our problems. You can only rightfully tax the things you own, and nothing else. Otherwise you would be committing plunder, albeit legalized plunder, which is still IMMORAL. The key point here is that government does NOT own you, nor your property, nor the fruits of your labor. As slavery was a flaw in the original Constitution, so is taxation, which is simply a different face of slavery and plunder. It is a violation of the Law of Justice, and thus is immoral. No wonder that this cancer that was embedded in the Constitution has now developed to the point of destruction of the society itself. This gross INJUSTICE must not be permitted to continue, if Liberty, and consequently the society itself, is to survive and prosper.

Interestingly, even the greatest legalized plunder of all, i.e. fiat, unbacked currency is actually made possible via taxation and could not exist without it. Let me explain: the government forced monopoly that is the indispensable essence of a fiat, unbacked currency is achieved via taxation. The government TAXES transactions in gold and silver, thus discouraging their use as money. Government demands capital gain and sales taxes on gold used as the medium of exchange in every transaction done with it. It's like going to the bank to change $5 bill into quarters and paying a sales tax on the transaction. Thus TAXATION is used to destroy Free Competition in Currencies, which Free Competition if it were present would have ended unbacked fiat, which cannot exist without a government forced monopoly. (Monopoly is the opposite of Free Competition and they cannot exist simultaneously. One must unavoidably destroy the other.) This was the proof that unbacked fiat is impossible without taxation.

...

1% income tax destroys 100% of the principle of self ownership and 100% of the principle of Private Property (which is Liberty itself), because one can justly tax ONLY the things he owns. By taxing you the government asserts, albeit falsely, that it OWNS you and ALL of your property. Which is a complete perversion of the truth!

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Winning Arguments
August 17, 2012
By eric


The speech Morpheus gave to Neo in the original Matrix was elegant – and eloquent. But we’re not in a movie – and most of us are not masters of verbal ju-jitsu any more than we are masters of actual ju-jitsu. So, how do we – we being those of us who believe in non-aggression, voluntarism and thus, human liberty – make our case to people who don’t think in such terms?

Image

The other day I had a chat with a neighbor friend. He posed a rhetorical question, “You do believe some taxes are necessary, right?” Rather than debate the merits of this or that tax, this or that function funded by taxes – I merely replied that as a non-violent person I am opposed to the use of violence, for anyreason except in self-defense. I therefore oppose, I told him, the violent taking of other people’s property for any purpose whatsoever. That while I might prefer this or that outcome, I would rather people dealt with one another on the basis of persuasion and mutual free consent – and not at gunpoint.

This approach usually at least results in a momentary pause. It may even get your opponent thinking.
Most people – including most of us – grew up with authoritarianism. It envelopes us, from womb to tomb. And so, we grow up accepting, implicitly, the moral schism that says violence is ok when it is doneofficially.
Or by a group, having so voted.

No. It goes much deeper than that. Because the violence is never – or rarely – spoken of openly. No politician running for office ever says, “I will threaten your neighbors with violence to provide money that I will use to provide schools for your children at their expense – and if they refuse, I’ll have them caged – even killed.”

Instead, the politician talks blandly about his “support for public education.” The lethal violence he is advocating remains in the background. He is thus able – of all things! – to posture as a “concerned” and “public-spirited” citizen, who “cares about the childrens’ future.”

Never mind the present of his victims.

People talk about the “need” for this or that – never mentioning or even considering that what they propose entails threatening people who have done them no harm and who owe them nothing with murderous violence if they disagree – and decline.

And so on.

The violence of our society is so pervasive, we swim in it as naturally – as obliviously – as fish in water. We – most of us – literally cannot even see it. We merely accept it as the natural order of things – and go about our lives accordingly. We vote – casually – to put our neighbors into cages – unless they Submit and Obey. To send armed men to their doorstep. To control and micromanage them, with the ever-present threat of the fist, the baton, the Tazer, even the gun always in the background. To deprive them of property – even life.

Image

And they, in turn, to us.

It is called by other things, of course. But this does not change the essential nature of the thing. The violence is there, just sublimated – and legitimated. Organized. Officialized. Euphemized. And so, accepted. Unquestioned. Acquiesced to.

But it is violence just the same.

Only, worse – because euphemized violence renders inert the moral sense. Those in its thrall lose the ability to separate right from wrong in principle. They are reduced to relativism – and utilitarianism. To “need” and ” want” rather than right – vs. wrong.

You will never win an argument over taxes on real estate to fund the local government socialization/indoctrination center by complaining about “waste” in the budget, or that homeowners can’t afford another rate hike this year. But you can make a devastating moral objection to the notion that anyone has the right to threaten others with violence in order to compel them to provide funds for such an endeavor. It is not about being “against public education.” It is about being against the use of threats and violence as the basis of human interaction. It is about getting people to see that the ultimate kindness – the highest form of compassion one human being can extend to another – is to agree not to engage him with violence, but rather, persuasion. If people cannot agree, then let them disagree peaceably – and go their separate ways.

Image

Violence – except in defense against violence – must come to be regarded as the essential sinful act. The single worst thing one human being can do to another. Those who believe – and act – otherwise must come to be viewed as pariahs. Sick. Evil.

Social suasion will do the rest.

People can live together in peace, without chewing each other to pieces, without reciprocal parasitism, enforced at bayonet-point. The world – our existence – does not have to be this way. It only requires getting enough of them tosee – and to feel – the water all around them, the sea of violence in which they swim.
It is time we crawled out onto the shore and took a deep breath of fresh air.

Throw it in the Woods?


Related posts:
  1. ‘Lil Stinker Won… But Government is Winning
  2. But Then We’d Have Anarchy!
  3. Good People
Read more: http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/08/17/w ... arguments/

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Changed the wording of the top post.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

with regards to Public property, I added this:
"a) agreed upon by the majority of the people"


User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Abolish the Corporate Income Tax
But ignore Pat Buchanan's advice on tariffs.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

America’s Deep Political Crisis and Private Property

By Michael S. Rozeff on July 9, 2013

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/mich ... al-crisis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...

The crisis is unusual in being slow and pervasive, rather than being quick and limited in scope. This is occurring because the heart and soul of the crisis has been institutionalized and legalized.

That heart is the income tax, passed in 1913 by constitutional amendment (although the legal ratification has been disputed). Human wealth embodied in the human being is what generates income, in conjunction with non-human capital. One has property not only in objects but in one’s own person and body. The taxation of this by society, government or state is a taking of one’s property. It is a form of slavery, a degree of slavery, in which the state co-owns the person and body of those subject to the income tax. Regulations that determine how one may generate or use wealth amount to roundabout forms of taxes.

These taxes and regulations could only be enacted as laws under the notion that older ideas of individual property ownership, even in one’s person, were inadequate or unjust, and that they needed to be modified or replaced by the newer ideas of property being a social matter. It is extraordinarily ironic that after a bloody war that ended slavery, a short 48 years later, the country would end up with an income tax that enslaved everyone subject to it.

America seriously modified its property rights regime in 1913 without abandoning it. It now had two contradictory ways of thinking about property. In the 1930s, the social function or social necessity or social welfare way of thinking about property rose in importance. Government intervention into property, by way of both taxation and regulation, became an accepted feature of American politics.

But the contradiction remains. Is property private or not? The extension of government power and violence into a long list of “states” like the welfare state, warfare state, penal state, big pharma state, etc. is a manifestation of interventionism. Even though these interventions serve only private interest groups, they all are rationalized by the idea that the intervention policy is overcoming problems with private property by assuring that property’s social side is tended to. This basic idea, however, crowds out and destroys private property. Every state intervention that transfers wealth to military-industrial businesses, or to banks or to surveillance firms or to large farmers or to prison builders and prison operators, takes that wealth from those who own private property.

Both Left and Right adhere to the idea that property is social. Both support interventions, but each with its own favored recipients of the resulting confiscated wealth.

The long-running crisis in America cannot be ended without resolving the question of property rights. The crisis will continue and deepen as long as government interventionism continues. The latter depends on the theory that the government can legitimately and justly tax and regulate for the sake of society because all property, including all persons and their wealth, lie at the government’s disposal. This theory of property being social and the institutionalization of this theory are the causes of America’s silent and unrecognized crisis.

If a person does not own what he or she produces, then who does? If other people do, which is the social or collective answer, then we get constant crisis as an outcome. If everyone owns everything and everyone’s wealth collectively, then there will be continual conflicts about who gets what. The incentive to produce and preserve wealth will deteriorate. Income production and job opportunities will decline. Economic crisis results from a political determination that property is social, not individual.

The alternative is that each and every person has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, understanding that this comprises each person’s property rights in the wealth and income that he or she generates, recognizing that each person justly owns what he or she produces, not other people, not society, not the government and not the state.


User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

WOW!

How to Fix Detroit in 6 Easy Steps


FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE · Jul 23rd, 2013

Image
Abandoned automobile factory in Detroit.


The news is full of stories of Detroit, and understandably so. It’s an unmitigated disaster. But I know how to fix it.

Seriously, I do!

I have a plan that would cost the state of Michigan nothing – not a cent. It wouldn’t cost DC anything either, and it would turn Detroit into the most thriving city in North America. As a bonus, it would give the remaining property owners in Detroit a financial windfall.

Here’s the plan:
  • The federal government (in writing) forbears taxes, regulations, laws, and impositions for a hundred years to the area of the current municipality of Detroit and to all persons and commercial entities resident there.
  • The government of the state of Michigan forbears taxes, regulations, laws, and impositions for a hundred years to the area of the current municipality of Detroit and to all persons and commercial entities resident there.
  • All municipal government agencies within Detroit are disbanded.
  • All state and federal offices within the city of Detroit are disbanded.
  • The federal government guarantees that entry and exit to/from Detroit will remain unchanged from the current conditions, and that no obligations will be placed upon residents of Detroit in any other place.
  • Federal and state governments immediately cease all payments to residents of Detroit. (They may resume payment to those persons if and when they are no longer resident in Detroit.)
The final legal document would be more complex than this, but those are all the main points necessary.

What this plan does is to return Detroit to its natural state – to the way it was managed when the first settlers arrived. (In other words, not managed at all.)

And think of the money that will be saved by Michigan and the feds. Billions per year.

And Then…

And then we have a free for all… and a good one. Think of Hong Kong, but easy to get to.

Businesses would begin to relocate the next morning. Hundreds of them, thousands of them. The people who still owned and lived in their homes would be offered lots of money for their properties.

Libertarians and conservatives, disgusted by the gang in DC, would load up and drive to Detroit. Productive former residents would return. Thousands of opportunity-seekers, anarcho-capitalists, and pot-smoking hippies would be gathering their money and buying property.

Detroit would, within only a few years, become the coolest city on the planet – by FAR.

But, But…

“But there won’t be any police!”

“There won’t be any courts!”

“It will be non-stop murder, death, and mayhem!”

You wanna bet? Do ya? (And you don’t think Detroit has non-stop mayhem already?)

The people who come to Detroit would be coming to escape from their chains and to be productive. These are precisely the kinds of people who clean up a town. And with no taxes to pay for a hundred years, they’d have plenty of extra money to spend on whatever services (security or otherwise) that they wanted.

The Truth

The truth, of course, is that the state and fed guvs will never agree to a plan like this one, for a single reason:

Because they fear it would succeed.

They’ll let every last person in Detroit rot before they’ll let a group of producers live free of their chains.

Detroit returned to its natural state would expose the great lie of the government game – that we can’t survive without them.

Paul Rosenberg

FreemansPerspective.com

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Modified second paragraph:

"Therefore, all forms of public taxation of private property, including but not limited to income, property, and sales taxes, are unjust, and therefore are expressly forbidden, and are hereby and henceforth abolished. "

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Man Pays Tax Bill With Thousands of Single Dollar Bills in Protest

Infowars.com

September 6, 2013

Robert Fernandes, an IT manager and father of three, moved to Forks Township, Penn. last year seeking lower property taxes so he could afford a larger home which could also house his elderly parents.



His wife home-schools their children, ages 7, 4, and 1.

He is not interested in being forced to pay $7,143 in taxes to fund public schools his children do not even attend.

“We don’t even use the public system, yet I am being forced to pay all this money into a public school system,” he told Leigh Valley Live. “I don’t think that’s really either fair or just or even ethical.

“It would be the equivalent if McDonald’s were to force vegetarians to pay for their cheeseburgers.”

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Larken Asks some Direct Questions
that will make you shiver (it did me).




Anyone who votes for Public taxation of Private property is committing a crime (knowingly or unknowingly).

Outside The Cage - Larken Rose - Episode 3 (2/3)

Outside The Cage - Larken Rose - Episode 3 (3/3)

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Tax Day
by Murray N. Rothbard
Image

Mises.org

This unsigned editorial, written by Murray N. Rothbard, appeared in the April 15, 1969, issue of The Libertarian (soon to become The Libertarian Forum).

April 15, that dread Income Tax day, is around again, and gives us a chance to ruminate on the nature of taxes and of the government itself.


The first great lesson to learn about taxation is that taxation is simply robbery. No more and no less. For what is "robbery"? Robbery is the taking of a man’s property by the use of violence or the threat thereof, and therefore without the victim’s consent. And yet what else is taxation?

Those who claim that taxation is, in some mystical sense, really "voluntary" should then have no qualms about getting rid of that vital feature of the law which says that failure to pay one’s taxes is criminal and subject to appropriate penalty. But does anyone seriously believe that if the payment of taxation were really made voluntary, say in the sense of contributing to the American Cancer Society, that any appreciable revenue would find itself into the coffers of government? Then why don’t we try it as an experiment for a few years, or a few decades, and find out?

But if taxation is robbery, then it follows as the night the day that those people who engage in, and live off, robbery are a gang of thieves. Hence the government is a group of thieves, and deserves, morally, aesthetically, and philosophically, to be treated exactly as a group of less socially respectable ruffians would be treated.

This issue of The Libertarian is dedicated to that growing legion of Americans who are engaging in various forms of that one weapon, that one act of the public which our rulers fear the most: tax rebellion, the cutting off the funds by which the host public is sapped to maintain the parasitic ruling classes. Here is a burning issue which could appeal to everyone, young and old, poor and wealthy, "working class" and middle class, regardless of race, color, or creed. Here is an issue which everyone understands, only too well. Taxation.



Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School, founder of modern libertarianism, and chief academic officer of the Mises Institute. He was also editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and appointed Lew as his executor. See Murray's books.

stockoneder
captain of 10
Posts: 39

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by stockoneder »

All taxation is theft and is immoral. Government is always based on force, which is also immoral, except when used in self-defense.
Anything government does, which is desired by enough people could and would be done in a free society by market participants, without
force. All it takes it for people to stop believing in the myth of authority and to live the golden rule. Amending the constitution will never
eliminate the force of government and all political government is antithetical to freedom.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

stockoneder wrote:All taxation is theft and is immoral. Government is always based on force, which is also immoral, except when used in self-defense.
Anything government does, which is desired by enough people could and would be done in a free society by market participants, without
force. All it takes it for people to stop believing in the myth of authority and to live the golden rule.
Agreed!
stockoneder wrote:Amending the constitution will never
eliminate the force of government
Aggressive violence (which is the definition of evil and injustice) of government can be expressly forbidden in the Constitution via the five amendments I proposed.
stockoneder wrote:and all political government is antithetical to freedom.
Incorrect. If government is restricted to its proper role, it is in harmony with freedom. The question, of course is, what is its proper role?


The answer is simple: Government is ownership. You have the right to govern your property. Your neighbor has the right to govern his property. And public representative government has the right to govern PUBLIC property, i.e. property to which all have equal claim of ownership. Such government of public property does not contradict the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, provided that:
  • a) decisions regarding public property are made by the majority, and
    b) every one is treated equally, because everyone has equal claim of ownership in the public property, and
    c) the property of no one is violated in the process.
Welcome to the forum!

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Added another section to the top post:
Explanation:

ALL of the society's problems are made possible or made worse by taxation.

Why?

What is taxation? Forceful (coercive) extraction of wealth. It is, by definition, based on aggressive violence, when one taxes the property he does not own.

Aggressive violence is the definition of evil. It is the definition of INJUSTICE. It is ALWAYS wrong. It is rooted in violation of private property.

Now, Private Property is the foundation of Liberty and Justice. Liberty and Justice DO NOT EXIST without Private Property.

What is Justice if not the right to use equal force to offset the aggression of another against your property? Thus, Justice is nothing more than Non-violation of Private Property. (Private Property here, of course, is taken in the broadest sense possible. It includes all the things you own, that you do not have to ask anyone permission to use, as long as you do not violate the property of another; and everyone must obtain your permission to use it. Defined this way, your private property includes you, your body, your mind, your ability to think, to speak, to act, to move, the fruits of your labor, etc..) Non-violation is another name for Non-Aggression (see NAP). It is the same thing.

And what is Liberty if not the right to do with your own property what you desire, as long as you do not violate the property of another?

Thus both Justice and Liberty are completely meaningless without the concept of private property. Anything that violates Private Property violates both JUSTICE and LIBERTY, and is therefore EVIL, by definition, no matter who practices it.

So public taxation of private property is EVIL.

It is THEFT by the strictest definition of the term. It is institutionalized INJUSTICE, institutionalized robbery, and institutionalized aggressive violence, which is institutionalized evil, by definition of the term. (EVIL is defined as aggressive violence.)

The loony idea that the rules of morality and justice do not apply to government is the core of our problems.

You can only rightfully tax the things you own (in the form of rent, user fee, or such), and nothing else. Otherwise you would be committing plunder, albeit legalized plunder, which is still IMMORAL.

The key point here is that government does NOT own you, nor your property, nor the fruits of your labor, therefore it cannot rightly tax you at all, because again, you can only rightly tax (forcefully extract wealth from) the things you own, and nothing else.

As slavery was a flaw in the original Constitution, so is taxation, which is simply a different face of slavery and plunder. It is a violation of the Law of Justice, and thus is immoral. No wonder that this cancer that was embedded in the Constitution has now developed to the point of destruction of the society itself. This gross INJUSTICE must not be permitted to continue if Liberty, and consequently the society itself, is to survive and prosper. Later in this article I will give another strict proof of immorality of taxation in terms of delegation of authority.

Some people argue that there is a "social contract" under the terms of which you are supposed to pay taxes to the public. That is false, because, by definition, for a contract to exist, there must be an individual, voluntary, and explicit consent to the terms of the contract. No such INDIVIDUAL, VOLUNTARY, and EXPLICIT consent exists for taxation.

In fact, by definition, taxation, like robbery, is INVOLUNTARY.

Some say, but you vote, therefore you consent. Not at all. Voting has nothing to do with consenting to taxation. It is not a part of voting procedure.

Some say, but you live here, therefore by mere act of being here you are consenting. Not true. I granted no such consent, neither anyone I know granted such consent. To ascribe EXPLICIT consent where none is given, and then to proceed to use aggressive violence to collect the tax is an act of usurpation, plunder and injustice, by strict definitions of those terms.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Added another section:
What about defense? Free Market can handle defense infinitely better than government forced monopoly as well, and it is the only way to provide it justly.

In addition, you can have your volunteer citizen militias at State and local levels. If people choose, federal defense can also be paid for by the States from public property user fees and from voluntary contributions. Bottom line, if people do not choose to pay for their defense they deserve to be conquered, and as with any valuable product, Free Market will deliver defense, i.e. justice enforcement most efficiently, and above all without violating the law of Justice, i.e. the law of Private Property.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

If Not For Government


stockoneder
captain of 10
Posts: 39

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by stockoneder »

LoveIsTruth said, "The answer is simple: Government is ownership. You have the right to govern your property. Your neighbor has the right to govern his property. And public representative government has the right to govern PUBLIC property, i.e. property to which all have equal claim of ownership. Such government of public property does not contradict the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, provided that:
  • a) decisions regarding public property are made by the majority, and
    b) every one is treated equally, because everyone has equal claim of ownership in the public property, and
    c) the property of no one is violated in the process.
Welcome to the forum![/quote]

Thanks!

I disagree with your last statement. Government by it very nature is based on force. Take away the force and you have no government.
Force is Satan's way not Gods.
Majority has no right over the minority- ever. You can morally vote for yourself but can't morally vote for me. You can choose to be a subject and to be under the power of other people who force you to obey them but have no right to do the same for me. In the pre-existence we all voted for ourselves and only for ourselves. In a group of 100 people, 51 of them who get together have no MORAL right to tell any of the other 49 what they can and can't do and what they must do or suffer having violence initiated against them. Where in God's laws can you find that?
The only way government could be moral is if those who didn't want to be involved could opt out and would then be left completely alone. But that never happens. Government always forces all within the geographic area it controls to be its subjects. That is not moral nor is it condoned by the laws of God.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

Post by LoveIsTruth »

stockoneder wrote:Force is Satan's way not Gods.
There is nothing wrong with force. What is wrong is aggression, i.e. violation of private property. Defensive force is perfectly justified. Aggressive force is always evil. All force that God uses is defensive force. He is never the aggressor. So aggressive violence is Satan’s way. Defensive force and justice is God’s way.
stockoneder wrote:Majority has no right over the minority- ever.
If there is joint ownership of property, majority vote does have a right over minority regarding THAT property. But where no such joint ownership exist, you are right, no majority, however large, has a right to violate the property of even one individual. Here we agree.
stockoneder wrote:The only way government could be moral is if those who didn't want to be involved could opt out and would then be left completely alone.
Again [just] government is ownership. No ownership, no government. What we now call “government” is an usurpation, injustice, and institutionalized aggressive violence. The only way a government could be moral if it violated no one’s property.
stockoneder wrote:But that never happens. Government always forces all within the geographic area it controls to be its subjects. That is not moral nor is it condoned by the laws of God.
Right. But remember unjust government is no government at all. It is simply organized crime. So what you call “government” is no government at all. It is simply a gang of robbers and murders feigning moral high ground to “justify” their plunder and to trick their victims into surrendering their rights and property.

Post Reply