One final thought, Rickaroo, if you would register your distaste for your nation's nuclear-weapons-stockpile insanity by not paying your taxes, even if no one joins you and your action fails to bring about the desired results of eliminating those weapons, you can hold up your head and say to one and all, "At least I don't pay for 'em."
Hey Rickaroo, here is a link to a university professor's article that answers your questions about how those things currently paid with tax revenues would be handled in the absence of taxation: https://mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf.
The title of the article is "The Obviousness of Anarchy." Professor Hasnas, George Mason University Law and History professor, also has an article on the internet entitled "The Myth of The Rule of Law," which you should also read. I presume you believe that myth as well.
Good learning my friend.
Hey Rickaroo, my friend, you ask a lot of questions, and then proceed to answer them yourself. You'll never learn anything that way, and if you have been doing that for a long time, that would explain the state of your knowledge, which is evident in your answers to your own questions.
Your confused belief that taxation is not theft simply reflects the fact that you are a taxpayer. As such, to acknowledge the true nature of taxation would reflect very poorly on you. Only a fool or a coward would cooperate in the ongoing extortion of his own property, so, its is better to bury one's head in the sand and deny the obvious than be forced to confront one's character flaws that allow the extortion to go on. T
his may help you get over your disastrous belief and what is really cognitive dissonance:
Go to the criminal laws of any of the jurisdictions among these several united states, look up and study the laws on extortion, menacing, and aggravated menacing. When you have done that, come back here and tell my what distinguished taxation from extortion as there defined by those laws.
You will learn that there isn't an iota of difference between extortion and taxation. Ergo: extortion being a form of theft, by the simplest logical syllogism, taxation is theft and your denial of that fact has nothing to do with the truth. Your denial is best explained as cognitive dissonance. For admitting a truth you have long denied is just too horrible a prospect for you to endure. But you can get over it, which will free your mind to explore many new venues previously closed to you.
I would personally recommend a study of the principles of nonviolence. I do this because you admit you don't know any other way to bring an and to the your nation's insane nuke program. " It is necessary to make the government AND the tax payers aware of the lunacy and destructive nature of our nuclear program, and I don't know of any other way they could have done so that would have been more emphatic or dramatic." Rick, old boy, you could have added to "emphatic and dramatic" the adjectives ineffective and fruitless, because of what their protest accomplished: viz., NOTHING! People, yourself obviously included, have long been fully aware of their nation's nuclear follies, but felt impotent to stop it. If those who feel as both you and I and the Ploughshare Three feel about this national insanity, and took the effective step of not paying the taxes upon which the insanity completely depends, our actions would change from impotent to potent and bring the program to an end. Of course that would require considerable wisdom and courage by the protesters. IRS agents are much more feared than the lackadaisical guards at our nuke facilities.
@"Because they love America, and believe that the billions spent each year to maintain our nuclear weaponry is an act of theft that diverts money to systems that promote death and not life.“
@"I know that Jesus Christ and the Blessed Mother do not have an arsenal of any kind," Walli once said."
David, while I believe the Ploughshare Three are sincere in their intentions, and I deplore the government's stockpile of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction as a veritable abomination, your article clearly demonstrates to me the three are woefully misguided, and thus their protests will justifiably bear no fruit.
Their target is the government, but the real villains financing the abomination are the taxpayers. They supply the funds for the nation's nuclear arsenal. Without taxpayers'supine acquiescence in the abominations of their government, and the payment of their taxes, we wouldn't have the problem of a stockpile of weapons sufficient to exterminate human life on this planet. Creating weapons no sane person would ever dare use is doubly insane, but allowing the fruits of one's labors to be taken for such purpose is triple insanity. I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that the Ploughshare Three have helped fund America's nuclear program they deplore with their own taxes before they were thrown in jail. Sincerity does not mitigate stupidity.
Based on the first statement I quoted, it is also evident the Three are severely confused on the subject of theft. There is no theft involved in diverting money to any system that promotes death instead of life. The theft occurs when the government takes money from taxpayers by force and coercion in the first place for whatever purpose. Taxation depends utterly on violence, and it is axiomatic that violence begets only more violence. Initiating violence to collect taxes can never serve to reduce violence. The statement I quoted sounds like the Ploughshare gang would find stealing acceptable if it was used for social programs rather than weapons of mass destruction.
Furthermore, what Walli says about Jesus and Mary is only a small part of the truth, and not the most important. Neither Jesus nor the Blessed Mother ever relied on OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for Other People's Money--forcibly extorted) to obtain their daily bread. Stealing is stealing whether the intended use of the loot is to build bombs or subsidize student loans.
David Cook: "But guns are not neutral objects. Guns -- 300 million of them in private ownership in America -- have an effect on the spirit and psychology of our nation. (Prove it!) And I do not believe it is a good one. (So what? Your metaphysical beliefs are meaningless.) Possessing a 10-gun personal arsenal distorts the psychology of a person. (Prove it!) Carrying a handgun wherever you go changes the way you see the world. (Prove it!) The only gospel preached through gun show (sic) culture is an isolating one. (Prove it!) An over-armed citizenry tends to fuel itself on self-crippling paranoia and nativism, (Prove it!) neither of which are integral to the creation of what Lincoln called 'a more perfect union.'"
David, I checked your bio. Don't see a degree in psychology or psychiatry, not even one in pop-psychology. So why are you practicing the latter in public? You only demean and embarrass yourself.
Oh, and explain this:"An over-armed citizenry tends to fuel itself on self-crippling paranoia and nativism."
Are you really from the South, as your bio indicates? Your comment is a notorious, effete, Yankee "progressive's" put down of us Southren boys and girls. Don't you know that the Yankee thug whose ridiculous quote about a "more perfect union" sent armed federal troops to slaughter Southreners and forcibly imposed that lousy union, and in the process killed over 620,000 Americans including many-times more precious Southren children than those few who died at Newtown, Connecticut? Do you think it is paranoia for Southreners to be wary of the federal government to the extent that they want to keep a Bushmaster under their beds without the fed-thugs knowing about it through mandated registration? I suppose you also think the American Indians whose ancestors, mostly very old men, women and many little children, were slaughtered like feral hogs by federal troops at Wounded Knee are paranoid because they wont surrender their weapons to Uncle Sam. Mr. Cook, you are obviously suffering from self-crippling naivete or purposeful dishonesty.
I notice in this your second column in just a few days on guns that you are backing away from your position in that first column, in which you called unabashedly for gun control. Was it the speech by the NRA's LaPiere belaboring the futility of such gun-control laws that caused you to backtrack and switch to pop-psychology? His argument, to use an apropos metaphor, blew your argument to pieces.
Remember this David: Gun-control laws don't control guns; they control people. And they do so by force. The heavily armed federal, state and local agents who would be called on to enforce your gun-people control laws by means of violence are more responsible for the slaughter of innocents in Newtown than any inanimate gun. That is because violence begets violence, and they are up to violence on a regular,if not daily, basis.
David, Don't you read the Free Press editorial pages? Didn't you read Thomas Sowell's commentary on Tuesday (12/18) entitled "Invincible ignorance." Here is how he led off: "The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available." (That, of course, was true in the case of the Newtown mass murderer.) Sowell goes on to provide all the proof a rational, fair-minded person would need to conclude that he is correct in his assessment.
David, try to understand this: Violence begets violence. (Need proof? Google "violence" and nonviolence" and you will find all the proof you need to accept the premise. Or conduct an experiment: go into a bikers' bar and exert a little force against one of the denizens to see if the aphorism holds true.) Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group. That is what gun-control laws do. So do tax laws. They all include enFORCEMENT provisions, which provide for the intentional use of physical force or power to control the benign behavior of peaceful citizens. Any and every act of violence or threatened use of force has seen and unseen consequences. The reciprocal violence may never be understood to have been begotten by a previous violent act because violence can mutate and spread unseen along unpredictable lines only to emerge when least expected--as in Newtown, Connecticut. If you have used force or violence to get what you want or think you need, including the forcible acts of your government agents, you are certainly more responsible for the Newtown massacre than any inanimate object. Shame on you.
Sowell went on to incisively pointed out, "Guns are not the problem. People are the problem--including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts."
Cook: "Thanks in part to dog-fighting mystique (great going, Michael Vick), redneck culture..."
Hey, Cook, your progressive, political-correct prejudice is showing. Don't you know that Micheal Vick is a Negro? Negros' have black or dark skin so the back of their necks don't turn red when they are out in the sun a lot. Rednecks are white folk who work or live outside a lot anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line. You know, like farmers. Why didn't you blame black culture? Oh, but that would be racist, and progressives are anything but racist--except when it comes to white folks who have red necks. It is my observation that blacks in poorer neighborhoods own a higher percentage of pit bulls than rednecks or other ethnic groups. Some own them for protection in a dangerous environment, with good reason, others own them for less-benign purposes. Your p-c, ethnic-group, progressive prejudice is no different than that of the Etowah council's prejudice against pitbulls.
Cook: "How many people has the American government killed? How much money is tied up in the functioning of the behemoth that is our nation-state, with its levers of power based in coercion and aggression?"
Insightful. The lever of coercion is the IRS. What it takes fuels all of government's other sins. Wars, etc.) all depend on the State's illicit power to tax.
Cook: "When we vote, we encourage and support this system."
True. If we vote, pay taxes, or otherwise show allegiance to the State, we share in the guilt for the many crimes of all government agents. According to the Common Law, we are responsible for every wrong they do in the conduct of their duties, including murdering innocents by such wicked means as armed drones.
Cook: "Halfway through writing this column, I got a call from a woman, distraught and sinking. In debt, sick, can't work, elderly and alone in this world. So yes, politics matter. Certain policies and budgetary decisions can save her life, or make it even more unbearable. So voting, most certainly, can be an extension of our faith."
As AndrewLohr asked: "[D]id you help the desperate lady yourself with your own resources...or did you refer her to tax-paid programs?"
If you did personally help the lady, keep it secret. Your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. If you did not help her, or if you thought you were helping by referring her to a government agency, or if you thought your subtle, sophist plug for Obama would help her, shame on you. Unless you personally help her, you are not Jesus' disciple. Jesus provided instructions regarding how we are to treat with our less-fortunate neighbors, most explicitly in his immortal parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus' Good Samaritan relies entirely on "his own" resources to succor the poor stranger who had been robbed and left to die alongside the road to Jericho by both a (progressive?) Levite and a (conservative?) priest. When he finished telling the parable, Jesus instructed: "Go and do likewise!")--Luke 10:25-37
Mr. Cook, you are right about some things but demonstrably wrong about this: "Certain policies and budgetary decisions can save her life." Prove it!
Government's social safety net doesn't save lives. It only make the recipients of government largesse dependent on OPM (OPM: sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for other people's money.) Recipients of OPM are really the victims of progressive government policies, which have the affect of robbing recipients of self-reliance, personal responsibility, ambition, initiative and integrity. Jesus also had words for those who send armed agents to collect taxes purportedly to aid the poor. To them he said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."
The difference between the Times and the Free Press editorial pages has become palpable, and impossible to ignore. Times editorial writers and columnists continues to act like paid flacks for Obama and the Democrats (Pelosi, Reid, etc.), whereas the Free Press editorial and commentary writers tell it like it is whether it burns Republicans or not. Such were the FP negative editorials about Romney and Ryan, which relied on facts rather than merely reworking and publishing the rhetoric of the candidates' campaigns. Meanwhile, the Times can find no flaw in their messiah from Hawaii, not even when he orders drone assassinations of American citizens, spends untold trillions of dollars of our children's and grand children's opportunities, and ruins the economy under mountains of debt.
Leaf said, "If you don't want to be inconvenienced by your fellow humans then move to North Dakota or some other god-forsaken place with nobody in it. Now quit your complaining and get back to work.
"Hey Leaf, if you like having every detail of your life regulated by your rulers in government, move to the Soviet Union where folks don't even pretend to be free. Oops, sorry, I forgot. There is no more Soviet Union. It fell under the burden of its own socialist regulations. Maybe you should try one of those nations where Sharia law prevails. You'd like it there. As Wiki says,"Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting." I'm sure such laws wouldn't inconvenience the likes of you. However, watch out for the ones regulating your sexual intercourse, particularly if you have any peculiar peccadilloes.