Originally Posted by The Rani

Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to any of this ... can you explain what exactly these restrictions are?

Fruitcake's "America's Berlin Wall" link from his post, #937 in this thread.

Of course, the John Birch Society link Fruitcake provided on the expat tax did NOT give you all the information but within the opinion was a link which did.

The Act applies to any expatriate if that individual (i) has a net worth of US$2 million or more; (ii) has an average net U.S. income tax liability of greater than US$139,000 for the five year period prior to expatriation; or (iii) fails to certify that he has complied with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the preceding five years (the ‘covered expatriate').

The Act contains two exceptions, which are broader than those contained in current law. An individual is not a ‘covered expatriate' if he certifies compliance with US federal tax obligations as specified in item (iii) above, and: (i) he was at birth a citizen of the U.S. and another country, provided that (a) as of the expatriation he continues to be a citizen of, and a tax resident of, such other country, and (b) he has been a resident of the U.S. for no more than 10 of the 15 taxable years ending with the taxable year of expatriation; or (ii) he relinquished U.S. citizenship before reaching the age of 18 ½, provided that he was a resident of the U.S. for not more than 10 taxable years before relinquishment.

Alex, given the limited scope of this law and the noted exceptions to it, what exactly is your concern about it? As it stands now, would it even apply to you?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If governments were typically this size, then perhaps your argument would have merit. In the real world, they are quite large and thus "living somewhere else" will impose substantial costs.

To reiterate my argument up-thread. I suspect that you would not accept this sort of argument with regard to employment contracts. Or do you think that the only appropriate response to employer abuse is to find a new job?

There is a further reason why your analogy fails. The "apartment complex" that is the United States was not entirely built by its government. Much of the territory is either virgin land or the product of the labor of persons not really connected to the government. A better analogy would be if a neighborhood watch organization tried to transform itself into a homeowner's association and begin dictating how people landscaped their yards. I think most of us would find that obnoxious.

As a matter of fact, the Homeowners Association analogy is a precise description of the town governments of New England, whose entire political system and belief was based on self-governing towns as the basic political unit.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Of course, the John Birch Society link Fruitcake provided on the expat tax did NOT give you all the information but within the opinion was a link which did.



Alex, given the limited scope of this law and the noted exceptions to it, what exactly is your concern about it? As it stands now, would it even apply to you?

The net can only grow tighter.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Of course, the John Birch Society link Fruitcake provided on the expat tax did NOT give you all the information but within the opinion was a link which did.



Alex, given the limited scope of this law and the noted exceptions to it, what exactly is your concern about it? As it stands now, would it even apply to you?

No, it wouldn't. I'm saying the precedent it sets is what concerns me - the precedent that the country can restrict you from leaving, even if aren't on the run from the law or something like that.

My point is that, although it seems far-fetched right now, nations in 4T can do and have done some strange things, like arbitrarily making certain groups into scapegoats, a la Jews in 1930s Germany. If I were to hypothetically (and again, this is far-fetched but not impossible) find myself in such a scapegoat group and things were getting ugly, I'd like to be able to leave in a hurry and not have to worry about things like exit restrictions. I don't mind being liable for taxes once I'm safely in another country, but I don't want to be physically prevented from crossing the border or getting on an international flight because of some dumb rule.

So that was the point I was trying to make. That contingency of leaving if things get bad always needs to be there.

BTW folks Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia also had an exit tax.

Originally Posted by fruitcake

BTW folks Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia also had an exit tax.

When each of us were born or hatched, the States provided a birth certificate for us. In order to get a SSN, our parents or sponsor, had to turn over our birth certificate to the Federal Government for Debt by the Federal Reserve System. To use the analogy, we are slaves to our Government. So we have to pay the exit tax or death tax to settle debts under our names by the Government. This is why many millionaires are opting out and to become Free Citizens.

Originally Posted by fruitcake

America's Berlin Wall

Wouldn't you know? It comes from the nutty John Birch Society. Those are the people who alleged that Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist.

Fruitcake, your moniker fits you amazingly well.

I should have known. If someone uses a name associated with some insane behavior (Howling at the Moon) or with a literary or cinematic villain (Simon Legree [Uncle Tom's Cabin], Arthur Radley [To Kill a Mockingbird], Phillis Dietrichson [Double Indemnity], or Lars Thorwald [Rear Window]), then beware.

Get help!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Wouldn't you know? It comes from the nutty John Birch Society. Those are the people who alleged that Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist.

Fruitcake, your moniker fits you amazingly well.

I should have known. If someone uses a name associated with some insane behavior (Howling at the Moon) or with a literary or cinematic villain (Simon Legree [Uncle Tom's Cabin], Arthur Radley [To Kill a Mockingbird], Phillis Dietrichson [Double Indemnity], or Lars Thorwald [Rear Window]), then beware.

Get help!

Arthur Radley???

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Kurt and Matt - the use of the apartment building was intended to show the similarities between the anarcho-libertarian who constantly complains about the USA and taxation and authority but more than willingly lives here, sucks up all the services and benefits they can get of living here, but clamors for changes which would destroy those services and benefits for others. The word HYPOCRITE comes to mind.

Well, OK, but what exactly is hypocritical here? There is a qualitative difference between opposing X and opposing X exhibiting Y. To use an example, I oppose the idea of state authority, and the modern police force, but I'm probably willing to use them if say, I felt like my life was in danger and they were the best available option to assist me.

Or take something like government-run welfare, something towards which I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I don't like the idea of forcibly taking money from some and giving it to others. On the other hand, I feel that if the money is going to be extracted (and with that out of the way), giving it to the poor is an acceptable solution to counteract state-created wealth disparity and lack of opportunity. So would I destroy government-run welfare immediately if I had the power to do so? No. Will I agitate for change to destroy taxation immediately, thus killing the welfare system? Yes. But my issue is with the rights-violating act of taxation, not state provision of welfare checks or food stamps.

So if I recognize that some people have been privileged over others by our benevolent government, I have no problem with groups of people using lesser privilege so their lives will run a little more smoothly. (This relates to my argument regarding gay marriage where I said expanding the scope of privilege may actually serve to lessen the consequence of that privilege; hence why I think "favoring" gay marriage, as a piecemeal solution, is the correct libertarian position. -- And before Justin chides me again for my apparent confidence here, I recognize that I might actually be wrong. But I don't think I am.) But the specifics do indeed get complicated since many get left out of the deal, so my already tepid support is now, uh, super-tepid.

An apartment building is where a person decides to live just like a country. They are free to live somewhere else if they do not like it there.

Sure, I guess (despite all unnecessary and unlibertarian restrictions on freedom of association), but who said I didn't like it here? I have some deep and serious objections to the way things are run, but there are other considerations besides the State that keep me here. And it's not like there is some anarcho-utopia in existence today, so what does this objection amount to anyway?

As for the word "tired"..... using it any way you want to use it does not then mean that you have hit the ball out of the park wit hits use.

I called it a tired sentiment because it runs afoul of many obviously legitimate principles, and is probably the most commonly used attack on anarchists. One of them I applied in the following sentence, where I said something to the effect of 'there are other considerations besides government structure regarding where to live.' Out of the park? Not necessary! Bunt single.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Kurt and Matt - the use of the apartment building was intended to show the similarities between the anarcho-libertarian who constantly complains about the USA and taxation and authority but more than willingly lives here, sucks up all the services and benefits they can get of living here, but clamors for changes which would destroy those services and benefits for others. The word HYPOCRITE comes to mind. An apartment building is where a person decides to live just like a country. They are free to live somewhere else if they do not like it there.

I understand why you were making that analogy. What I don't understand is why you wouldn't apply that analogy to employment. Why is it that "love it or leave it" is a cruel argument with regard to a job, but a perfectly sound argument with regard to citizenship? How do you resolve this contradiction?

This contradiction is especially odd given that, for the vast majority of people, it is more feasible to switch jobs than to switch countries.

from Alex

I'm saying the precedent it sets is what concerns me - the precedent that the country can restrict you from leaving, even if aren't on the run from the law or something like that.

How does this law prevent anyone from actually leaving the country and going elsewhere?

from Kurt Horner

I understand why you were making that analogy. What I don't understand is why you wouldn't apply that analogy to employment. Why is it that "love it or leave it" is a cruel argument with regard to a job, but a perfectly sound argument with regard to citizenship? How do you resolve this contradiction?

Kurt - i do not remember making that as part of my position - now or ever. How could there then be a contradiction?

Matt1989 asks

Well, OK, but what exactly is hypocritical here?

I feel it is hypocritical for someone - you, me or anyone - top live in a society of their choice and of their own free will knowing full well the obligations of citizenship one has in that society - including taxes - and then attempt to subvert the will of the vast majority of people by advocating that people freeload and not pay their taxes and generally be a leech both off the government and the citizens whom the government represents. You want your cake, you want to eat your cake, but you do not want to pay for your cake.

We live in a very well established representative democracy that has long standing institutions, traditions and laws. I see nothing wrong with advocating for change or new laws or abolishing old laws. That is part of the process. I do think it is very wrong for anyone to suggest they can live in this society, take advantage of its bounty and benefits, but not fulfill their obligations as a member of that society because they have some ideological differences.

Libertarains are always preaching about free choice, free markets and taking responsibility for life. So do it already. You keep running candidates for president which do not even garner one-half of one percent of the vote. The American people have spoken. Use that free choice to find a better market more suited to your beliefs.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

As a matter of fact, the Homeowners Association analogy is a precise description of the town governments of New England, whose entire political system and belief was based on self-governing towns as the basic political unit.

Yes, but those organizations started that way, while the analogy I used was of an organization whose purview was expanding.

At this point, we would need to be very clear on what precise function a governing body is providing. It is very common in discussions of the basic legitimacy of government to bundle all potential government services together and treat them as inseparable. In reality, there are no services provided by the state that have not in various times and places been effectively provided by private means.* The only constant is that all states provide some services, but which services they provide vary widely.

It's simply not accurate to equate lack of support for state provision of a service with being "anti-social." The "screw you, I've got mine" attitude can just as easily come from those receiving a government service. In short, the whole "atomism" argument against libertarianism just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


* Even supposedly "core" services like national defense have been provided without coercion, as many societies have had pure militia systems.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

...At this point, we would need to be very clear on what precise function a governing body is providing. It is very common in discussions of the basic legitimacy of government to bundle all potential government services together and treat them as inseparable. In reality, there are no services provided by the state that have not in various times and places been effectively provided by private means.*

* Even supposedly "core" services like national defense have been provided without coercion, as many societies have had pure militia systems.

-Agreed, at least on a theoretical level.

Huh. Haymarket makes this statement:

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

...After I got my CO deferment in 1971...

...but then posts this:

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I feel it is hypocritical for someone - you, me or anyone - top live in a society of their choice and of their own free will knowing full well the obligations of citizenship one has in that society - including taxes - and then attempt to subvert the will of the vast majority of people by advocating that people freeload and not pay their taxes and generally be a leech both off the government and the citizens whom the government represents. You want your cake, you want to eat your cake, but you do not want to pay for your cake...

...So, how does a guy give a lecture on the obligations of citizenship, who knows that it's the duty of young men to serve their country in uniform, but then "subverts the will of the vast majority of people" by dodging said "obligation of citizenship" by defrauding his country by falsely claiming to be a Conscientious Objector?

Hypocrite Martyr.

---
Back to Playwrite:

I'd still love to know: When PW was supposedly visiting SE Asia, did he bother to check out the "Anti-War" movement's handiwork in the re-education camps, and in the killing fields? The answer seems to be NO...

Back to Haymarket':

I'd still love to know: Who paid Haymarket's Military Service Tax? Come on, I know you're retired, Haymarket. I'd think it'd be easy to go check out the old county draft records from 1971. You can look the guy up, and thank him for his inconvenience...

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Kurt - i do not remember making that as part of my position - now or ever. How could there then be a contradiction?

Can you clarify your position on employment then? Are you saying that the only appropriate response to poor working conditions is to find a new job? That would be a surprising position for someone with the moniker "haymarket martyr"!

Or, are you saying that I'm mischaracterizing your argument as "love it or leave it?"

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I feel it is hypocritical for someone - you, me or anyone - top live in a society of their choice and of their own free will knowing full well the obligations of citizenship one has in that society - including taxes - and then attempt to subvert the will of the vast majority of people by advocating that people freeload and not pay their taxes and generally be a leech both off the government and the citizens whom the government represents.

Is anyone advocating this? It seems the anti-tax types are also against the public expenditures. They're advocating an alternate means of funding and paying for these services -- not an end to them.

But, let's examine this argument more closely:

The state provides roads with tax money.
Libertarians would like roads to be built and maintained by private owners (individuals or groups). At present, this isn't really an option. In response, libertarians could:

1) Continue advocating this change while paying taxes and using the tax-funded roads.
2) Continue advocating this change while not paying taxes but use the tax-funded roads.
3) Continue advocating this change while neither paying taxes nor using the tax-funded roads (i.e. be a hermit).
4) Continue advocating this change while paying taxes but not using the tax-funded roads (i.e. be a really dumb hermit).
5) Submit to the will of the majority without protest.

As I'm sure you're aware, the overwhelming majority of libertarians choose option 1). I think this is the correct response --playing the hand you're dealt. Is this inappropriate? Should they take a different option? If so, why?

(BTW, option 5 is just plain wrong. A person should never cease advocating a position unless they no longer support it. Nor should they bow to social pressure to do so. That is the root of censorship.)

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

...So, how does a guy give a lecture on the obligations of citizenship, who knows that it's the duty of young men to serve their country in uniform, but then "subverts the will of the vast majority of people" by dodging said "obligation of citizenship" by defrauding his country by falsely claiming to be a Conscientious Objector?

Obviously on that issue, HM took the proper response -- which is that there are no obligations of citizenship. If the state truly is founded on a social contract then it is appropriate to object to unreasonable demands from one's government. In this case, the unreasonable demand was to risk his life attempting to kill people who posed no threat to him. What was he getting in return for that horribly dangerous task? College funding? Access to the incredibly shitty VA hospitals?

HM may argue that conscription is categorically different from high taxes. I would disagree, but still, in the grand scheme of things a tax hike is far less of an imposition than being drafted. It may be a difference of degree only, but there's a lot of degree there!

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Obviously on that issue, HM took the proper response -- which is that there are no obligations of citizenship. If the state truly is founded on a social contract then it is appropriate to object to unreasonable demands from one's government. In this case, the unreasonable demand was to risk his life attempting to kill people who posed no threat to him. What was he getting in return for that horribly dangerous task? College funding? Access to the incredibly shitty VA hospitals?

HM may argue that conscription is categorically different from high taxes. I would disagree, but still, in the grand scheme of things a tax hike is far less of an imposition than being drafted. It may be a difference of degree only, but there's a lot of degree there!

You sure got that wrong about no obligations of citizenship. When you sign up for Selective Service, any funds you receive from the Federal Government, you are obligated to pay back or met other conditions per that contract. Your death also means that you become right with the State/ US government once you pay the death tax.

Kurt

you asked this of me

Can you clarify your position on employment then? Are you saying that the only appropriate response to poor working conditions is to find a new job? That would be a surprising position for someone with the moniker "haymarket martyr"

Please forgive me if i am missing the obvious here but I do not remember taking any position of employment. To what position that I took are you referring? Before we go any further, I would appreciate it you could clear that up because I certainly do not want to be put in the position of having to defend something I never advocated in the first place.

Regarding any hypocrisy and my C.O. situation..... the American government fully and completely recognizes a person doing CO service as part of any citizens obligation to its government and to the society it represents. I fulfilled my governmental obligation to the satisfaction of the government and the law it recognizes. If others have a problem with that, it is their problem and they have to find a way to live with it...... or not.... I could not care less which they take.

and this was asked regarding the mention of 'freeloading'.... "is anyone advocating this?"

post 929 in this thread.... Matt1989 .... yesterday

I'm puzzled as to why you think coercion is less damaging to a flourishing society than freeloading.

Or am I jumping to the wrong conclusion from those words?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Matt1989 asks

You can use the quote button on the bottom right of each post to avoid the copy/paste work.

I feel it is hypocritical for someone - you, me or anyone - top live in a society of their choice and of their own free will knowing full well the obligations of citizenship one has in that society - including taxes - and then attempt to subvert the will of the vast majority of people by advocating that people freeload and not pay their taxes and generally be a leech both off the government and the citizens whom the government represents. You want your cake, you want to eat your cake, but you do not want to pay for your cake.

That doesn't sound particularly hypocritical, but it might be wrong nonetheless.

At any rate, I think your argument is hampered by the fact that there are other functions of the State that should even give liberals pause with regard to taxation. Roads and hospitals aren't as big in my mind as some of the other things the U.S. gov't does (like war), particularly because most of these peaceful public goods would exist in the absence of the State. In fact, I think the idea that there is some sort of moral obligation to pay taxes is far too damaged by the much more striking coercive activities of the State to have any merit.

Libertarains are always preaching about free choice, free markets and taking responsibility for life. So do it already.

What makes you think I haven't? I associate with certain people out of my own free choice, I pirate most of my media (the very thing you wish to deny me), and guide myself in the fashion I want.

You keep running candidates for president which do not even garner one-half of one percent of the vote.

I don't run any candidates, I don't vote, and I couldn't care less what the LP does with its time. I mean, I wish they'd stop embarrassing themselves and inadvertently damaging the cause of libertarianism through their statist means, but my tendency is toward simply ignoring a party that nominates Bob Barr as its leader.

The American people have spoken. Use that free choice to find a better market more suited to your beliefs.

You mean 'leave the country,' right? Well unless you give me a decent reason (a difficult thing, since adults rarely seem to know what is best for youths, especially considering the fact that you don't know me), I'm not going to take your suggestion seriously.

Why do you care so much anyhow?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Please forgive me if i am missing the obvious here but I do not remember taking any position of employment. To what position that I took are you referring? Before we go any further, I would appreciate it you could clear that up because I certainly do not want to be put in the position of having to defend something I never advocated in the first place.

Ah yes, the return of hm's Fails-To-Understand-Analogy-Man persona. Right on schedule...

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

and this was asked regarding the mention of 'freeloading'.... "is anyone advocating this?"

post 929 in this thread.... Matt1989 .... yesterday

I'm puzzled as to why you think coercion is less damaging to a flourishing society than freeloading.

Or am I jumping to the wrong conclusion from those words?

Yes you are. I merely suggested that initiatory coercion is a worse evil than freeloading.

Pissing in the corner to establish your turf again Justin? You seem to have soiled your own pantleg .... yet again.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Pissing in the corner to establish your turf again Justin?

Not at all, hm. I'm just trying to illuminate the return of your discussion-avoidance tactics in a hope to save people time and frustration in trying to engage it.

Readers who actually care about the exchange of opinion and reasoning together have already taken and assimilated Kurt's point. You are trying to drag him down into pointless time-wasting with the 'militantly ignorant' persona you adopt on these boards for such a task. In the event that I have read them correctly, and that the other posters here value reasoned exchange, It seems only worthwhile to do what is possible to help them avoid being ambushed.

Meaningful dialogue with your personae is impossible, and I've always been a big believer in forewarning when possible.

Matt - thank you for clarifying your position on the Libertarian party and your feelings toward it. I can respect that you do not include yourself in that effort. I do feel that when you have an official political party that is represented on the ballot in the different states, and they have the name Libertarian Party and they advocate a whole raft of positions commonly identified as libertarian in nature and in fact, that the vote for that party is indeed a significant indicator of the support in the general public for libertarianism.

I can understand how anyone would not want to be identified to a political organization whose "success" is as dismal as that of the Libertarian Party, not just based on one election, but year after year after year.

You offer this

At any rate, I think your argument is hampered by the fact that there are other functions of the State that should even give liberals pause with regard to taxation. Roads and hospitals aren't as big in my mind as some of the other things the U.S. gov't does (like war), particularly because most of these peaceful public goods would exist in the absence of the State. In fact, I think the idea that there is some sort of moral obligation to pay taxes is far too damaged by the much more striking coercive activities of the State to have any merit

.

As a member of society who willingly resides here, I accept that I am not the King. I accept the fact that there has been long established a system of political representation and the passing of laws and instituting government sponsored action. I accept that my opinion on any of this will not always emerge as the dominant one or the one that is victorious and enacted.

I also accept what you have several times termed as coercion. I accept that the same way I accept the loss of blood during surgery ot the way I accept getting those annoying little remnants in my teeth after i eat a great ear of summer corn. It just the way it is in this world. No more - no less.... its just reality. One can go down to the ocean shoreline and plant their feet as firmly as they can into the sand and attempt to hold back the tides from coming in. It does not work. It is simply the way things work. Coercion is part of all governments. Its that simple. To rail against that is to rail against reality.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

You sure got that wrong about no obligations of citizenship. When you sign up for Selective Service, any funds you receive from the Federal Government, you are obligated to pay back or met other conditions per that contract. Your death also means that you become right with the State/ US government once you pay the death tax.

This may be what the law says, but I was discussing what social contract theory implies. The concept of obligations of citizenship is incompatible with that theory of the state's legitimacy. In practice, actual states do not act as if they are in a contract with their citizens -- they act as masters.