Even if you live deep in the woods with a bunch of chickens and vegetables, without using any state resources, you must make a certain amount of money per year to pay property taxes. All of your possessions are essentially on loan to you by the state. You cannot live a dollar-free, self-sufficient lifestyle in the US. Should people not have the right to that option? Is there any that I'm not aware of?

8/20/2013 5:22:39 PM

8/20/2013 5:27:28 PM

^
That's illegal too.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/introduction.html

[Edited on August 20, 2013 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2013 5:28:43 PM

You don't even have the right to not-insure yourself anymore.

8/20/2013 5:30:15 PM

sometimes I kinda wish we would just wall-off one of our useless states like Utah or something and just give people the option to enter it so that they could live out the rest of their lives completely free of the state and outside influence only to discover just how goddamn hellish that would be.

at the very least, it would mitigate the libertarian circle-jerk that is had on message boards all over the country.

8/20/2013 6:40:34 PM

^
It would be a hellish existence for most people, including most internet libertarians. There are tons of people, though, who are completely capable of living this lifestyle comfortably. I don't understand why you would be against it just because it's not your thing. Why shouldn't people have this option?

Also Utah is a beautiful state

8/20/2013 6:47:37 PM

I'm not against it. I'm for it. And if it has the added benefit of shedding the country of Utah, then I'm all for it.


Have fun chopping down trees for your log cabin, cultivating rain water, growing your own garden, and protecting your few possessions from those who don't acknowledge the conceit of property...



...oh, and bears.

8/20/2013 6:50:31 PM

Quote :

"Have fun chopping down trees for your log cabin, cultivating rain water, growing your own garden, and protecting your few possessions from those who don't acknowledge the conceit of property... ...oh, and bears."

I love the idea of that. I don't think I could do it, personally. Maybe for a year or two, if I knew how to do all that stuff.

Seems like you have some hangup with equating libertarians to this lifestyle. Other proponents: buddhist monks, hippie communists, amish people, etc.

8/20/2013 6:56:54 PM

Buddhist monks don't live in the wild, and neither do hippie communists. And even the amish understand the importance of community. None of those examples of people living an independent and self sustaining lifestyle.

Look, go ahead and try it. There's a reason why life expectancy is higher now than it was when nomadic tribes were wandering the earth, or when early pioneers were getting bit by rattlesnakes and dying of dysentery. Better hope the rain gods are merciful and bless your crops, otherwise your freedom loving ass is starving this winter.


How's that liberty going to feel when you're in Utah on your own being pummeled by a bear? Just look at what happened to this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OdSYygIsr0

8/20/2013 7:38:28 PM

Quote :

"without using any state resources"

The US military protects you from living in a war-ravaged impoverished shithole like most of the worlds population. That shit ain't cheap.

8/20/2013 7:43:01 PM

Aren't there some areas of Texas and Alaska without property taxes?

Also are you saying you don't use any state resources?

8/20/2013 7:43:42 PM

^^^I never mentioned living "in the wild" in my first post. I'm talking about living off the grid and outside of the dollar system. Why the hostility?

Quote :

"Also are you saying you don't use any state resources?"

I'm not talking about me.

[Edited on August 20, 2013 at 7:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2013 7:46:06 PM

I'm just being a dick. Pay it no mind.


But seriously, you use more state resources than you think. And the only reason why I used my Utah analogy was to post that youtube clip. Well, that and to make the obvious point that any "society" (if you could even call it that) that was entirely independent of any form of governance would in all likelihood devolve into savagery. Seriously. Underground economies and warlord type stuff. That, and just a general shitty standard of living.

You would need to go into "town" within a week just to resupply on doodoo paper, at which point you'd be using state resources.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the closest thing we have to a "stateless" society are Amazon tribes and war torn cities like Mogadishu. If that's your bag, then have at it.

8/20/2013 7:53:11 PM

One way to escape taxes, until you request the government save you:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/15/christians-pacific-voyage-rescue-kiribati

Quote :

"Christian family home after ill-fated Pacific voyage to escape US tyranny Couple rescued after setting off for Kiribati in a small boat with two young children to flee 'state control' of religion"

Quote :

"Sean Gastonguay told KTVK-TV he would now have to find work to repay the $10,000 the family borrowed from the US State Department to fly home."

Quote :

"US "churches aren't their own", Hannah Gastonguay said, suggesting that government regulation interfered with religious independence. "Jesus isn't the head of the church. God isn't the head of the church." Among other differences, she said, they had a problem with being "forced to pay these taxes that pay for abortions we don't agree with"."

Somehow I'm guessing that between public roads, education, sewer, police/fire protection, maybe unemployment, tax returns, and the $10,000 in rescue services, they've probably taken more funds away from the government abortion funds than they've added to it.

[Edited on August 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2013 8:08:37 PM

Quote :

"I'm not talking about me."

So what, you're happy being a slave to your state then?

8/20/2013 8:20:07 PM

Quote :

"But seriously, you use more state resources than you think. And the only reason why I used my Utah analogy was to post that youtube clip. Well, that and to make the obvious point that any "society" (if you could even call it that) that was entirely independent of any form of governance would in all likelihood devolve into savagery. Seriously. Underground economies and warlord type stuff. That, and just a general shitty standard of living."

You're talking about large-scale anarchism. I'm talking about 3-10 people.

Quote :

"You would need to go into "town" within a week just to resupply on doodoo paper, at which point you'd be using state resources."

Really though, so what if they use a small amount of state resources? If they go into town to resupply, they're contributing to society.

Quote :

"So what, you're happy being a slave to your state then?"

I have no problem with taxes. I use loads of state resources. I only have a problem with property tax, mandatory buy-in health insurance, and whatever else that would limit someone from living off the grid if they so chose.

8/20/2013 8:41:22 PM

^Where does car insurance stand in that scenario?

8/20/2013 8:55:25 PM

^
Cars are optional.

8/20/2013 8:57:52 PM

Quote :

"sometimes I kinda wish we would just wall-off one of our useless states like Utah or something and just give people the option to enter it so that they could live out the rest of their lives completely free of the state and outside influence only to discover just how goddamn hellish that would be."

It would probably become the American version of Hong Kong within a generation or two. This shit isn't rocket science. People respond to incentives, and when you give them a place to live their life without the constant threat of violence, a lot of people (not all of them crackpots) are probably going to take you up on it. This is obviously purely theoretical. The federal government would never allow anything like this to take place. Even states that "go rogue" (i.e. ignore or nullify federal mandates) will be crushed.

Internet libertarian here. I have no desire to return to nature. I want to live in a highly advanced society. Yes, I know the argument. Without government, there will be no police, no transportation, no fresh water, no education, no health care, etc. It's horse shit, of course. There's nothing that government does better, with the notable exception of mass murder.

There's not a single person on this forum that would pay taxes if it were optional. None of you would. That's the entire point - if you didn't have to pay in, you wouldn't. Doesn't it seem a little strange that you all argue for the system that 1) you were born into and 2) you had no say in? (Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias)

[Edited on August 20, 2013 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2013 9:04:04 PM

Someone's always gonna be in charge, whether you like it or not.

8/20/2013 9:08:58 PM

Quote :

"Someone's always gonna be in charge, whether you like it or not."

This is an assumption, not an argument.

8/20/2013 9:11:39 PM

It's an assumption based on the entirety of recorded history everywhere on planet earth.

8/20/2013 9:13:19 PM

Okay. Slavery still exists today. As in, actual human ownership, I'm not even speaking in abstract terms here.

Do you think that's acceptable? Is it okay to say "Eh, that's always how it will be"? If something is wrong, then should we not oppose it?

Philosophically, what is "realistic in our lifetimes" or "practical" is not important. If people assign necessity to evil, then we will continue to have evil. It's important for those capable of understanding and processing the moral landscape insist on better circumstances. The best (most permanent) revolutions are intellectual in nature.

[Edited on August 20, 2013 at 9:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2013 9:20:32 PM

Quote :

" "sometimes I kinda wish we would just wall-off one of our useless states like Utah or something and just give people the option to enter it so that they could live out the rest of their lives completely free of the state and outside influence only to discover just how goddamn hellish that would be.""

Lets see, first the lumber companies would probably clearcut the easily-accessed, forested parts of Utah, next I'd imagine you'd see oil/fracking rigs dotting the landscape, finally I'd imagine a decent portion of the state could be strip mined for uranium and assorted gemstones.

Good luck defending your little plot of soil and water source from those assholes.

8/20/2013 9:52:53 PM

Yes. A nation full of gun owners and fundamental Christians would spontaneously form a highly civilized technological Hong Kong like utopia within a decade or so.


Your thought exercise isn't even hypothetical. At least hypotheticals are built on careful observations of real world behavior.

8/20/2013 9:53:29 PM

Quote :

"Philosophically, what is "realistic in our lifetimes" or "practical" is not important"

Well that's where me and you differ sharply. I got a family to take care of. I support what's practical. Plus we have a loooooong way to go before we as a species are so advanced at resolving conflicts and distribution of scarce resources that we don't need mass organization, especially with the amount of people we have on this planet.

Also we don't have slavery because people in charge with big guns said it wasn't OK. In fact, those people fought another set of people, and the ones with the better organization and bigger guns won out.

[Edited on August 20, 2013 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2013 9:53:56 PM

The entire second half of American history of westward expansion is a case study of people escaping statehood and failing miserably. So unless you want to go join the Donnor party, come join us back in reality and try to limit the abuses of government rather than trying to escape it.

8/20/2013 10:01:59 PM

Your property is being protected from invasion-- you owe the military

Your property is being protected by the rule of law-- you owe your state and federal attorneys general.

There's no escaping coercion in this world. Homesteaders are free of it only because of the governments existing over their head.

8/20/2013 10:10:11 PM

Quote :

" I use loads of state resources. I only have a problem with property tax"

Quote :

" I use loads of state resources. I only have a problem with property tax"

Quote :

" I use loads of state resources. I only have a problem with property tax"

Also you seem to be aware that property taxes are assessed by the county, not the state, which is pretty sad, but telling.

8/20/2013 10:29:24 PM

Quote :

"Yes. A nation full of gun owners and fundamental Christians would spontaneously form a highly civilized technological Hong Kong like utopia within a decade or so."

Are fundamentalist Christians really going to want to live in a place where drugs and prostitution are legal?

Quote :

"The entire second half of American history of westward expansion is a case study of people escaping statehood and failing miserably. So unless you want to go join the Donnor party, come join us back in reality and try to limit the abuses of government rather than trying to escape it."

Limiting government power. Novel idea, why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

Quote :

"Your property is being protected from invasion-- you owe the military"

Great! Send me a bill for the "defense" part, and I'll look out for the rebate for all the optional adventurism.

Quote :

"Also we don't have slavery because people in charge with big guns said it wasn't OK. In fact, those people fought another set of people, and the ones with the better organization and bigger guns won out."

You know what people with big guns said before? That it's okay. Not only that it's okay, but that you can use the legal system to get your property (that is, human slaves) back. Good ole government!

[Edited on August 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2013 10:47:16 PM

Quote :

"Also you seem to be aware that property taxes are assessed by the county, not the state, which is pretty sad, but telling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

"State", in some contexts virtually synonymous with "government"

[Edited on August 20, 2013 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2013 10:52:25 PM

property is theft, yo

8/20/2013 11:26:33 PM

Quote :

"Are fundamentalist Christians really going to want to live in a place where drugs and prostitution are legal?"

Uhhh...probably. Which would be consistent with history, as EVERY fucking new city or town in America that popped up still has a "first baptist" or "first Presbyterian" or "first who gives a shit" church blocks away from the local town square, which were probably occupied with the local town douchebag condemning the acts of 'good time betty' and the evils of public drunkenness during the towns inception.

What, you think those patterns would just all of a sudden stop in your stateless make-believe land? Libertarian, please. Not only would those people likely go there, but without a state (and most definitely without a secular state) they would -- if history is any indication -- become one of the most powerful actors in your experiment. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to play by your rules. You're libertarian candy-land has to be able to absorb like minded individuals like yourself as well as the undesirables.

And that is why your thought exercise will always fail. You never calculate for dissent. Ever. Once all those shitheads get together with their conflicting ideals...eventually, some form of rule will emerge. And if you continually insist that it is a state-less government, then you will be forced to watch as Libertyland burns to the ground, and some shitty theocratic system rises from the ashes.

8/21/2013 3:35:52 AM

Quote :

"You know what people with big guns said before? That it's okay. Not only that it's okay, but that you can use the legal system to get your property (that is, human slaves) back. Good ole government!"

Exactly...so guess what's never going away? People with big guns telling others what to do.

8/21/2013 5:47:40 AM

if a totally voluntary society is possible (by that I mean no "violence" from the government), then why hasn't it happened? if its possible to do, then why haven't libertarians started this? what is stopping them?

8/21/2013 7:44:20 AM

So the only defense to what this thread is actually about (property tax), is that people utilize some level of government resources, regardless of what they do or where they live (defense of their property, at a minimum). As such, they are required to earn a minute level income to pay into the system. I see the argument, but it still seems wrong to me.

8/21/2013 8:09:42 AM

many places have exemptions from property taxes for the things you described. here in NC, i know that we have exemption programs for elderly, disabled, and disabled veterans. There is also a deferment program that's open to most people. I know in other places there are exemptions for homesteaders (unsure about here in NC).

8/21/2013 9:39:14 AM

Quote :

"property is theft, yo"

I've never heard a good argument for this. You find a vacant piece of land, you grow crops on it, you build a house on it...how is that theft?

If property is theft, then existence is theft.

8/21/2013 10:06:57 AM

^not sure how old you are or what your life experience is, but your utopian visions don't really seem to account for human nature and reality.

8/21/2013 10:09:15 AM

in your example the person is just using the land and no one owns it

8/21/2013 10:09:22 AM

Quote :

"in your example the person is just using the land and no one owns it"

I'm not suggesting that they own the land; it's fair to say they're only using it. I'm saying that the crops and the house are creations that would not be there if the person had not brought them about. Therefore, those items can be attributed to the individual. The land is being used, but those items are owned. Again, how does ownership of items that you have created meet the definition of "theft"?

8/21/2013 10:35:05 AM

^
You could take that argument in two directions. If you tilled the land, you created something that wasn't there before.

Or similarly, if you built a house, you're only using materials that already existed.

[Edited on August 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM. Reason : v gotcha]

8/21/2013 10:38:39 AM

Right, but theft presumes prior ownership. Picking up a stick isn't stealing.

8/21/2013 10:43:30 AM

But is cutting down a bunch of trees and routing a stream for irrigation?

8/21/2013 10:49:23 AM

so you have your land that you chose and built your house on. I decided that I want access to the minerals under your crops, so I've built a house on that land too and am starting to mine it. i hope you don't mind that my window is 6' from you.

we're all good right?

8/21/2013 11:01:09 AM

Quote :

"You find a vacant piece of land, you grow crops on it, you build a house on it...how is that theft?"

By what authority do you have the right to grow crops or build a house on "vacant" land? Why does it magically become yours? What stops someone else from coming and using the same land? The only true authority is your ability to defend it or our society's ability to help you defend it.

Property ownership is as arbitrary as any other social contract.

[Edited on August 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

8/21/2013 11:19:31 AM

My mine is doing really well and I need to expand it. Your house and crops are in my way so I've torn them down.

We're still good, right?

8/21/2013 11:28:08 AM

Quote :

"But is cutting down a bunch of trees and routing a stream for irrigation?"

It might not be the right thing to do, but it isn't theft.

Quote :

"By what authority do you have the right to grow crops or build a house on "vacant" land? Why does it magically become yours? What stops someone else from coming and using the same land? The only true authority is your ability to defend it or our society's ability to help you defend it. Property ownership is as arbitrary as any other social contract."

Great, property is a social contract. Still not theft.

8/21/2013 2:06:30 PM

who enforces and protects that social contract? you?

my mining company is bigger than you, and in this libertarian free-for-all we have our own private police and military to protect transactions. we are taking your shitty farm.

8/21/2013 2:15:56 PM

Quote :

"It might not be the right thing to do, but it isn't theft."

The people downstream of your farm who drink that water and depend on it for irrigation would probably disagree with your opinion. They'd probably think that it certainly was theft.

8/21/2013 2:42:44 PM