This is interesting. I gave it a cursory look, but want to give it a more in depth look and let it bounce around in my head for awhile before I commit. Initially the idea of a Tax implies a government. Tax is force. It is not something you can voluntarily choose not to pay without being penalized, thrown in jail, or possibly killed in the process. It is therefore force. It may be coercive force for the most part until resisted, but it is not voluntary and it is force. So having taxation as a component implies a force. It also still IS forcing others to pay for it. So it's not really different. Just a different form of taxation.
Though there is some interesting ideas in the document so like I said I do want to read it in more depth and give it a chance to SINK IN. I may change my mind. ;)
Please do read it. It's collectivist garbage. The basic economic principles still apply. There's no way to get what they want without someone paying for it. They want the "rich" to pay for it. That's the "solution."
They want to take from some to give to others. It really is that simple. I'm "rich" because I worked my ass off all my life to be successful. I don't "deserve" my wealth. All those people around me living in debt and way beyong their means who have never worked hard to learn a valuable skill in the market? Nah, they deserve better. I need to pay them....
Yeah, right.
Yeah, I do intend to read it again today. I suspected that was likely to be the case as soon as it started seeming to head those routes and especially when it started relying upon taxation. Yet, I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt until I read it and thought about it for awhile as it does have some new perspectives I've not seen before. Thus, I need to let those new ideas sift around for a bit in my head.
Wow, opt out and voluntary, ehh? I'll have to ask my brother-in-law, who's a tax attorney for the IRS, about that. He'll have a hearty laugh.
No kidding.
Losing the argument, ehh?
I am not. Yet I do think you may be. Which is why I haven't bothered to respond in depth to you.
You are choosing to interpret in a light that allows you to attack rather than trying to consider what a person may be saying that would not make that a negative.
You see. You painted it as EXACTLY the opposite of why I stated it.
I stated it so I was clear that I can be wrong, and thus like any human might change my mind. ;) I also made it pretty clear there was some new stuff in the document I wanted to think about for awhile.
There was no "Some taxation is force"...
Why would there need to be?