Would you prefer if I used the equally-ambiguous "some" instead of "a lot"? I also used the collective pronoun "us" because there are in fact numerous like-minded people who are using this tactic to point out this error. In case you overlooked it, I specified the nationalist "we." The one where people unthinkingly associate themselves as members of the political class. I don't know about you, but I'm not part of that plundering gang of thieves. The word "we" does not apply, even though I do benefit to an extent. It's one of the things which deeply bothers me about being a librarian. Government has monopolized a valuable service and perverted it by tying it to their systemic extortion.
"Government." There's an interesting collective pronoun. Like the nationalist we, it is presented as something to which we belong despite the absence of any evidence for consent. It is a word used as shorthand for the people who live by political plunder instead of economic production and mutual voluntary consent. Yet every election cycle, we (as in anyone who hears anything from government propagandists) are told the government is "us," and our votes are our voice. This baseless assertion is taught to all of us, and widely accepted as an article of faith in the religion of democracy, even though it is just the false choice and bandwagon fallacies wrapped in flags.
I rather like the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights because those documents tell the government, "no." The Constitution, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, is neither contract nor compact, and has no legitimate authority over us. It is unfit to exist. If all you have are insults, perhaps you need more self-examination and rational argumentation.
You spent several replies spewing invective and failing to make any case for anything. You continue to deliberately misrepresent my actual clearly-stated argument regarding the nationalist "we." Government is not society. Rejection of the State is not rejection of cooperation, quite the opposite in fact. You make a big deal about "Nation," but what is it? We have diverse cultures, regional traditions, and local customs. There is no homogeneous whole, just a territorial claim made by a political class of plunderers. Your arguments beg the question by assuming this is all legitimate.
The founding fathers were not infallible. Hell, they compromised on the matter of slavery. They thought taxation was only a problem due to the absence of "representation." Well, now we have "representation," and the taxation is far more oppressive than anything King George could have imagined. There is nothing voluntary or consensual about any of it. As Spooner clearly argued, there can be no real representation in a system of secret ballots. There is no agent/principal relationship whatsoever. Voters are usurpers when they claim to speak for their neighbors. It's a farce.
And then there's your classic ergo decedo. "Go fuck off where you don't despise what everyone else does, thinks (despite your notion) and says." This dodges criticism in a cowardly manner. Address the argument. Don't attack the person making it. Act like a civilized human being.
How do you personally avoid paying taxes and are not in prison yet?
I have read a book about it (forgot its name) where it's suggested how to do it, but I didn't understand the technical terms, it was in English and I was not able to make a proper translation.
Taking it to court, I can imagine, would be a battle.
Thank you. I did not see any translation and hardly found anything else other than the book. If it was she. Name still does not ring. But it says the same: you agree to your identity (given name in birth certificate), you agree to the rest.