Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2015, 02:57 PM
Thumbs Down Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
People keep assuming my constant nagging about the US's unique policy that it taxes its citizens for life even if they live abroad is about some gripe over taxes that affects a small number of people. It's not.

As I keep trying to explain, it's an important question because whether one is allowed to leave a system they disapprove is the single-most fundamental core issue. It is the defining difference between between an employee vs. a slave, checking into a hotel vs. going to prison. If I invite you over to my house for a BBQ, is there any issue more fundamental than whether I (a) will let you leave whenever you want, no strings attached, or (b) insist that by coming into my home you have a life-long duty to perform my chores and if you resist I will use force to make you comply? Is that single issue not the difference between going to someone's house as a guest vs. being kidnapped?

It also determines if you believe that the role of government serves the people or owns the people. If it serves the people, it provides a service which you pay for with taxation--taxation and the services are joined, and just like with any other service provider, if you leave and take your business elsewhere, getting services from another country, you stop paying for the services you're no longer using. If government owns the people born within its borders, then the services & taxes are disconnected; the government owns the fruits of your labor for life, just like a master does with his slave, whether you use the services or not.

I'm obviously not suggesting there's a moral equivalent between the atrocities of racial slavery and US taxation on expats. However, they are the same issue--they both boil down to the question of if each individual is sovereign and free to choose which economic system he will live under, or if he is owned by another group who dictates the terms of his departure. In both cases, the justification is that the liberty of one group (ie blacks or rich expats) should be sacrificed for the benefit of another group that holds the power (ie whites or US residents).

This is a core issue, since the UN declaration of human rights declares the right to leave one's country with no strings attached to be a core human rights issue. And, as I've pointed out, no developed country but the US denies that right. And the thinking that the state has the right to force people to participate against their will is what makes ISIS and N. Korea evil in the minds of the rest of the world.

But, every time I bring this up, most on this board take the position of the US democrats, that one should not be able to just say goodbye to his country when it no longer serves his needs, but has a duty that lasts for life. And all agree that the obligation does not extend to the state & local governments that provide education, roads, etc., nor to the social secure & medicare programs, but the obligation is to fund the US general budget, most of which is for war. Thus both parties are war parties to me.

It is why we libertarians always prefer to do business with the private sector whenever possible because the exchange of goods & payments is voluntary, and can be terminated at any time for any reason. No private enterprise can use force to make you pay for its services if you don't want them and don't use them.

So, in my final post, I want to say there's no point in debating what government works best if we can't even agree on what government IS: that which SERVES the people, or which OWNS the people. That core issue has to be resolved first, or else we're just going around in circles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
(28-12-2015 02:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  People keep assuming my constant nagging about the US's unique policy that it taxes its citizens for life even if they live abroad is about some gripe over taxes that affects a small number of people. It's not.

As I keep trying to explain, it's an important question because whether one is allowed to leave a system they disapprove is the single-most fundamental core issue. It is the defining difference between between an employee vs. a slave, checking into a hotel vs. going to prison. If I invite you over to my house for a BBQ, is there any issue more fundamental than whether I (a) will let you leave whenever you want, no strings attached, or (b) insist that by coming into my home you have a life-long duty to perform my chores and if you resist I will use force to make you comply? Is that single issue not the difference between going to someone's house as a guest vs. being kidnapped?

It also determines if you believe that the role of government serves the people or owns the people. If it serves the people, it provides a service which you pay for with taxation--taxation and the services are joined, and just like with any other service provider, if you leave and take your business elsewhere, getting services from another country, you stop paying for the services you're no longer using. If government owns the people born within its borders, then the services & taxes are disconnected; the government owns the fruits of your labor for life, just like a master does with his slave, whether you use the services or not.

I'm obviously not suggesting there's a moral equivalent between the atrocities of racial slavery and US taxation on expats. However, they are the same issue--they both boil down to the question of if each individual is sovereign and free to choose which economic system he will live under, or if he is owned by another group who dictates the terms of his departure. In both cases, the justification is that the liberty of one group (ie blacks or rich expats) should be sacrificed for the benefit of another group that holds the power (ie whites or US residents).

This is a core issue, since the UN declaration of human rights declares the right to leave one's country with no strings attached to be a core human rights issue. And, as I've pointed out, no developed country but the US denies that right. And the thinking that the state has the right to force people to participate against their will is what makes ISIS and N. Korea evil in the minds of the rest of the world.

But, every time I bring this up, most on this board take the position of the US democrats, that one should not be able to just say goodbye to his country when it no longer serves his needs, but has a duty that lasts for life. And all agree that the obligation does not extend to the state & local governments that provide education, roads, etc., nor to the social secure & medicare programs, but the obligation is to fund the US general budget, most of which is for war. Thus both parties are war parties to me.

It is why we libertarians always prefer to do business with the private sector whenever possible because the exchange of goods & payments is voluntary, and can be terminated at any time for any reason. No private enterprise can use force to make you pay for its services if you don't want them and don't use them.

So, in my final post, I want to say there's no point in debating what government works best if we can't even agree on what government IS: that which SERVES the people, or which OWNS the people. That core issue has to be resolved first, or else we're just going around in circles.

All one has to do is turn in their passport and their relationship with the US govt is legally severed.
But i like Harry Browne's definition of government. That group of people who produce nothing, and tell others what, when,and how they can produce. Have you ever read Harry Browne's books?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
28-12-2015, 03:12 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2015 03:17 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
(28-12-2015 02:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As I keep trying to explain, it's an important question because whether one is allowed to leave a system they disapprove is the single-most fundamental core issue.

As long as you can make it to foreign soil and show up at a US consulate you are free to renounce your citizenship at any time. Your continuous assertion that the US won't allow you to renounce it until you have foreign citizenship is an out and out lie. You have zero credibility.

(28-12-2015 02:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, in my final post, ....

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-12-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
(28-12-2015 03:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 02:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As I keep trying to explain, it's an important question because whether one is allowed to leave a system they disapprove is the single-most fundamental core issue.

As long as you can make it to foreign soil and show up at a US consulate you are free to renounce your citizenship at any time. Your continuous assertion that the US won't allow you to renounce it until you have foreign citizenship is an out and out lie. You have zero credibility. I'm not gonna miss you this time.

http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/e...nship.html

But then, what would he have to whine his lips off, about ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-12-2015, 03:35 PM
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
(28-12-2015 03:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 03:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  As long as you can make it to foreign soil and show up at a US consulate you are free to renounce your citizenship at any time. Your continuous assertion that the US won't allow you to renounce it until you have foreign citizenship is an out and out lie. You have zero credibility. I'm not gonna miss you this time.

http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/e...nship.html

But then, what would he have to whine his lips off, about ?

Asshole gives libertarians a bad name.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-12-2015, 03:50 PM
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
(28-12-2015 03:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Asshole gives libertarians a bad name.
That's one of the many reasons I happily left my state's Libertarian group. Too many of them talk but never do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
Where did he even move to?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 04:13 PM
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
Wait wait wait, back the train up a bit because I've obviously not read a thread and missed something here.

Who the fuck in their right mind believes that it's a good idea to tax people who no longer live in said country, citizens or not? If you don't live in a country you shouldn't pay taxes to that country. Simple as that.

Continuing to tax people after they've moved to another country is the most retarded shit I've ever herd for a long time.
How is that even remotely legally possible?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
(28-12-2015 04:13 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Wait wait wait, back the train up a bit because I've obviously not read a thread and missed something here.

Who the fuck in their right mind believes that it's a good idea to tax people who no longer live in said country, citizens or not? If you don't live in a country you shouldn't pay taxes to that country. Simple as that.

Continuing to tax people after they've moved to another country is the most retarded shit I've ever herd for a long time.
How is that even remotely legally possible?

Only the U.S. and only citizens making more that $100,000.

The purpose of the law was to plug a gap that allowed wealth transfer and tax avoidance. People were gaming the system by declaring residency abroad for the sole purpose of tax avoidance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-12-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: Pointless to debate the best gov't if we can't even agree what gov't is
(28-12-2015 04:13 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Wait wait wait, back the train up a bit because I've obviously not read a thread and missed something here.

Who the fuck in their right mind believes that it's a good idea to tax people who no longer live in said country, citizens or not? If you don't live in a country you shouldn't pay taxes to that country. Simple as that.

Continuing to tax people after they've moved to another country is the most retarded shit I've ever herd* for a long time.
How is that even remotely legally possible?

*heard

If the income is generated from the infrastructure and transparent (banking) institutions the taxpayers in said country have set up and paid for, then it makes perfect sense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: