Larken Rose

More About: TAXES: Federal

Please Enslave Me!

It shouldn't surprise anyone that people in positions of power will try to hold onto that power, and will use whatever arguments they can think of--however irrational or immoral--to try to justify the power they have. What's really sad--downright pathetic, actually--is when the powerless people vehemently argue why they should be powerless, oppressed, robbed, and otherwise controlled. Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

If, for example, one points out that "taxation" is merely theft by a different name, not only do the thieves object, but the victims of the theft also insist that it's not really theft, or that it's necessary theft, or that they approve of the theft, or have given their permission for someone to rob them. (If you doubt this, check out the comments on my "I'm Allowed to Rob You!" video.) If not for constant authoritarian indoctrination, people wouldn't make such bizarre arguments. Can you imagine the following, for example?

Guy A: "Hey buddy, isn't that your car over there?"
Guy B: "Yeah. So?"
Guy A: "So someone's breaking into it! Look!"
Guy B: "Well, that's the price I pay to live in a civilized country."
Guy A: "Huh? Now he's hot-wiring it. You just gonna stand there?"
Guy B: "I'm willing to contribute to this great society we live in."
Guy A: "What are you talking about? You're being robbed!"
Guy B: "Don't be silly. It's not robbery. It's the will of the people."
Guy A: "What people? Aren't you the one who paid for the car?"
Guy B: "Yeah, but the guy who's taking it is serving the common good."
Guy A: "How does that guy stealing your car help the common good?"
Guy B: "Well, I trust he'll do useful things with my car."
Guy A: "Weren't you going to do useful things with it?"
Guy B: "Yes, but if we each just used our own stuff, there would be chaos!"
Guy A: "Well, you can trade stuff, but that guy just stole your car!!"
Guy B: "No he didn't. By living on this block I agreed to lose my car."
Guy A: "So anyone can swipe your car, and you don't mind?"
Guy B: "Don't be silly! Only the local carjacker can do it."
Guy A: "So whoever decides to be a carjacker is allowed to rob you?"
Guy B: "Well, if I don't like it, I can try to appoint a new local carjacker."
Guy A: "What would be the point of that? The new guy would still steal your car!"
Guy B: "Yes, but he would be representing me while stealing my car."
Guy A: "What does that mean?! How does a thief represent you?"
Guy B: "Because I can ask him to do good things with my car."
Guy A: "And will he listen to you, and do what you want?"
Guy B: "Well, so far they never have. But I keep trying."
Guy A: "Why would you even try?"
Guy B: "You have to participate. Otherwise you can't complain."
Guy A: "Yes I can! I'm not the one claiming that I should be robbed!"
Guy B: "You have to work within the system."
Guy A: "What system? The system made up by the carjackers?"
Guy B: "Of course. It's the civilized thing to do."
Guy A: "Why not oppose carjacking altogether?"
Guy B: "Don't be silly. Every town has to have some carjacking."
Guy A: "So you're just going to keep putting up with being robbed?"
Guy B: "It's not robbery. The carjackers have my implied consent to do it."
Guy A: "What? You told them they could take it?"
Guy B: "No, but by living here, that counts as me giving them permission."
Guy A: "Who says so?"
Guy B: "The carjackers. They say being here counts as agreeing to be robbed."
Guy A: "And you believe them?!"
Guy B: "Look, if you don't like being robbed, leave my neighborhood!"
Guy A: "But I'm saying that you shouldn't be robbed!"
Guy B: "Yes I should, you wacko, fringe kook! Now go away!"

Of course, such a conversation would never really happen. Unless, of course, the thief was called "government," in which case that very conversation happens quite often. The victims of state robbery constantly argue that they somehow gave their "consent" to be robbed, and that the robbers "represent" them. They babble on and on about the "common good," the "will of the people," and other collectivist garbage, in an attempt to justify their own robbery and oppression. How sad is that?  Meanwhile, their pro-slavery rhetoric--spewed back in Pavlovian fashion, having been hammered into their heads by the indoctrination camps called "schools"--carefully tap-dances around some basic, undeniable aspects of reality:

1) Money swiped via "taxation" doesn't go to "the people"--it goes to the politicians, who spend it however they damn well please (handouts to huge banks, war-mongering, vote-buying, etc.).

2) "Taxation" is not the result of "consent" or "agreement"--it is the confiscation of money via the threat of violence. (Bizarrely, the victims often claim that they choose to be "taxed," and do so willingly, as if they have a choice.)

3) To say that politicians "represent" the people makes no more sense than saying that a carjacker "represents" his victim. And using the term "public servants" to describe the ruling class is equally asinine. We earn it, the politicians take it and spend it. To pretend that we are in control of the arrangement, or that we are the beneficiaries of the situation, is just plain batty, but most people still claim that that is the case.

4) Even if the people had the power to choose who was going to rob and oppress them, that has nothing to do with "representation" or "consent." Unless each person can choose to have "none of the above" robbing him, there is no representation and no consent involved. (Despite statist propaganda, a collective cannot give "consent" for an individual to be robbed. If the actual person involved doesn't agree to it, it's not consent, any more than gang rape is "consensual," because all of the perpetrators "consented" on behalf of the victim.)

5) The people don't have the power to choose who will rob and oppress them. The current ruling class gives them two identical twin tyrants to "choose" from, which--amazingly--makes lots of the peasants think they are in control.

As Goethe put it, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." But maybe he was wrong. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who zealously argue for their own continued enslavement." And that is a fine description of most Americans.


16 Comments in Response to

Comment by Free Thinker
Entered on:

A: "What's that in your hand?" B: "My rent payment" A: "YOU'RE BEING ROBBED?" B: "No, I'm paying my rent" A: "That's theft!" B: "What, no, I live here so I pay rent" A: "But that's still theft, you don't have a choice" B: "I could always move" A: "And pay rent there too" B: "No, I could be homeless instead.' A: " Well it's still theft! Your landlord takes all that money for himself, none of it goes back to help you" B: "Who do you think paid for the elevators being repaired?" A: "...Still theft" This conversation would never happen... Unless the tenant is the government. Taxation is rent. Hell, it's capitalism. The real slaves are people who buy into the false paradigm of taxation being theft. They are slaves to demogauges who use anti-establishment rhetoric to seize power and then use that power to turn their state into a totalitarian regime. Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Napolean, all of them used methods like the OP's argument to seize power. Think for yourself. Do not obey the fascist machine that spews this drivel like so much sewage.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Not all taxes are illegal. But ALL taxes are morally and ethically wrong!

If you do a study, using Ballentine's Law Dictionary, on the word "tax," you will find that "tax" equals fraud in meaning. Now, the direct meaning of "tax" does not say fraud. But if you look up the definitions of all the words and phrases in the definition of "tax," and then you look up the definitions of those words and phrases, you will finally come to circular references, at least one of which equates tax with fraud.

Regarding the income tax, the idea of taxing money earned as wages was disgusting to the founding fathers. Tax business enterprise when business enterprise contracts with Government. Tax import/export. Tax interstate commerce. But don't tax the wages of people. And that is the way the founders set the Constitution up... so that there would be no taxes on the wages that people earned.

So, what did Government do? They found a way to twist the meaning of earned money into a kind of thing that they were allowed to tax. And they did it legally, legally by the letter of the law, that is. It is an excise tax. It is a tax based on a quasi-contractual relationship between people and Government. Income is only the method for determining the amount of tax. So, it looks like an income tax. It is legal... by the letter of the law, that is. AND TOTALLY BREAKS THE SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION, the SPIRIT of foundational law.

The way that we will overcome will be by gradually getting the spirit, the intent, to be the focus in all the legal issues. Right now, if you go to court, determinations are often made based on intent. But most of these determinations are made regarding people. We need to start translating intent into areas of Government activity, so that we can get the courts to repeal all kinds of laws... including the income tax... because the RESULT of the income tax law is exactly opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, and of the SPIRIT of the law.

Comment by Johnny Appleseed
Entered on:

The stupidity of some people amazes me. If you want to understand why taxes are important, read up on the Articles of Confederation and educate yourself you f☺cking idiot 

Comment by Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Entered on:
I will offer something to "GrandPoobah's" last question that goes beyond the response from Tessa Rose - "read 'Kick the Dragon' - and its contents as described at  plus a review at Amazon ( ).

Earlier this year I wrote an article in regard to the insufficiency of public protests/complaints, "Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough: Relationship of Self-Responsibility and Social Order". The points I made there are directly applicable here.
Start of article----------

Numerous Internet news sources and commentaries have carried an increased number of reports for many months about various group in-person protests and email/petition actions in the US (and elsewhere) in regard to high government taxes and/or various regulations.

I contend that public complaining and even protesting in public is of little real meaning unless those protesting withdraw their sanction/approval from and usage of the things that government does, all paid for by taxes or from borrowed money with principal and interest then repaid from taxes. A brief list of recommendations:

  • Do *not* make use of "government services" that can be obtained privately;
  • Initiate/support cooperative efforts that replace "government services";
  • Do *not* work for or do business with governments of any form in any capacity;
  • Preferentially associate with those who do *not* work for governments - positive social preferencing;
  • Do *not* voluntarily associate with those who continue to work for government despite being encouraged not to do so - negative social preferencing;

  • Last but not least - and actually primary to the preceding,
  • Practice self-responsibility and encourage the same by all others, especially children and young people.
  • --------------For the rest of article see

    The whole purpose of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project ( is to first derive a consistent and complete foundation and practical implementation of a stateless stable self-ordered society, and then by consistently taking the above actions (and more) to eventually (and without violence) cause the State to wither and die because of non-use and non-sanction.

    Kitty Antonik Wakfer
    MoreLife for the rational - Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting


    Comment by Tessa Rose
    Entered on:

    In response to Grand Poobah: If you think Larken is all talk, you need to read "Kicking the Dragon." In response to Ronald Avery: What Larken is presuming is that any taking of property without consent is robbery. He is using the words "government" and "taxation" to refer to something nonconsensual and involuntary on the part of its victims. It's possible that you're just confusing terms rather than actually disagreeing. If people organize themselves voluntarily and consensually to protect their individual rights, we would not call that government, but civilized anarchy. If people voluntarily enter a contract to pay for the protection of their rights, we would not call that "taxation." So it's possible that what you're calling "lawful taxation" and "lawful government" is what we would call anarchy, because "government" by consent is not government by our definition.

    Comment by john ramos
    Entered on:

     It's sad to say but most people in the U.S. are as dumb as a box of rocks and terrified as well the only way to stop the tax theft is to stop paying thats it stand up for your self for christ sake its about time.

    Comment by Doug Nusbaum
    Entered on:

    So tell me.  Do you not pay any income taxes?  Are you actively resisting paying taxes?   Are you a member of any tax resistance group.   (I used to be a member of the NCBA in the 70's in Denver --- google it)

    How do you suggest changing things?   Complaining is easy, but it is certainly not a plan.

    Comment by Ronald Avery
    Entered on:

    First let me say with some qualification that I enjoyed Larken's description of the modern citizen in technoslavia (USA). The first qualification is that he has lumped all means of government support into one category called "taxation." All taxes are not unlawful nor do all violate the principles of property. A sales tax does not violate property and should be used to support lawful government which has only one purpose and that is to protect the property of each individual. The rule of lawful taxation is that it cannot threaten property nor the ownership of property.

    The next qualification is that Larken presumes that all taxation is robbery which it is not.

    Third Larken presumes that all those who believe in any form of government and lawful taxation to support lawful government are "statists." Statist believe that the state owns the lives, liberties and possessions of the people as the Kings once thought. Statists do condone robbery for the support of unlawful government. But there is such a thing as lawful government and lawful taxation to support it for the group defense of individual property.

    But other than that I had a good time reading it and think it most accurate for many people who do not understand what government is and how it is to be supported. And that applies to state government as well as federal government.

    One additional comment: Under the principles of property a person cannot make themselves a voluntary slave as that is a gift from God and it cannot be alienated by anyone including the holder of it. Our lives belong to God and we are put hear at His will and removed at His will and no other's. He that interferes with God's will is a tyrant.


    Comment by Larry Stuler
    Entered on:

               Larken, the truth is that anyone who applied for a Social Security number basically signed a contract with the federal government stating exactly what you have titled your article:  “Please enslave me”.


              The Social Security scam is the root of all of America’s political and social problems.  By applying for a Social Security card, an American gave up all sovereignty by becoming a federal employee.  After all, only federal employees are liable for federal employment taxes! Actually all Americans are bombarded with this information every day, but we Americans just presume that things are the way they are and that we Americans have had no say in anything.  But we Americans just ignore the obvious - we Americans just oblige the federal government’s pronouncements without thinking about why we pay federal employment taxes.


              The Supreme Court has ruled upon the sovereignty of an American in several cases, such as, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, and Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed (2 Dall.) 415.  Each of these cases confirmed that the individual American is the source of sovereign power in America.  


              The Supreme Court, in a related case, United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, held the following:  “Since in common usage, the term person does not include the sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”.


              None of us Americans have ever been contacted by any government agency by the phrase “Dear Sovereign American”.  Instead, we are labeled as “taxpayer”.  Again, we Americans just oblige the federal government’s pronouncements without taking the time to think.  Now the federal government knows that its powers are limited by the chains of the Constitution when it comes to an American, but it has no such limitations when it comes to its own employees.


              “Taxpayer” is a legal term and it is defined at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(a)(5) as someone in the Merchant Marine, a federal employee.  26 C.F.R. 2.1(m) states the following:  “The terms used in this section shall have the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.”  (Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code has to do with the income tax).  26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) states the following:  “Insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, other terms used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise provided, have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.”.  This is the federal employee that an American becomes by applying for a Social Security number.


              By applying for a Social Security number, we Americans have given away all sovereignty and become federal employees subject to a host of the federal government’s Socialistic alphabet agencies, such as, the ATF, the IRS, the FDA, the EPA, the SEC, the FCC, the FTC, the Dep’t of Education, the Dep’t of Labor, ad nauseam. 


                Your quote from Goethe is right on (“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”) when it comes to most Americans as they proudly declare “I’m a taxpayer!”.



              But becoming a federal employee is not the only thing that an American has become in the eyes of the government by applying for a Social Security number.  The federal government only has the commerce jurisdictions granted to it by the Constitution - foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.


              FICA is a U.S. possession tax (26 U.S.C. Section 7655), since the federal government has no such authority within the States, but has no restrictions within its own possessions.  So for an American to apply for a U.S. possession tax (FICA), the federal government presumes that the applicant is also a “U.S. Citizen”.  Remember, the federal government never addresses anyone as “Dear Sovereign American”.  A U.S. Citizen has U.S. possession citizenship (26 U.S.C. Section 2501(b) states that this is the definition of citizen throughout the title and 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1(c) actually exemplifies what a “ U.S. citizen” is).  This furthers the stranglehold that the federal government has over a Social Security applicant. 


              “Internal revenue” is a special part of the Customs.  Customs gains revenue for the federal government by collecting duties on importing from foreign countries.  Internal revenue gains revenue for the federal government by collecting duties on importing from the U.S. possessions - thus a source of “internal revenue” from the government’s perspective.  Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7510, “Exemption from tax of domestic goods purchased for the United States”, declares as follows:  “The privilege existing by provision of law on December 1, 1873, or thereafter of purchasing supplies of goods imported from foreign countries for the use of the United States, duty free, shall be extended, under such regulations as the Secretary or his delegate may prescribe, to all articles of domestic production which are subject to tax by the provisions of this title.”.  This section allows the government to avoid paying importing duties on its own supplies from foreign countries or its own possessions (domestic production).


              It is within title 19 U.S.C., Customs duties”, section 1317 that states that the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2197(a) (1939 edition).  The jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is defined at 26 U.S.C. Section 2197(a) (1939 edition) as “within the external boundaries of the United States”, which is obviously the opposite of “within the internal boundaries of the United States”, in other words, the U.S. possessions and territories. 


              The income tax was first created within an Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, “An Act to provide increased revenue from imports to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes”, nearly a year before the creation of the position of  commissioner of Internal Revenue (the official IRS web site states that this position was created by the Act of Congress approved on July 1, 1862).  Note that the income tax was part of an Act of Congress based upon importing.  The income tax applies to collectors and assessors of internal duties.  That’s why the Supreme Court held that the 16th Amendment was Constitutional in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) case - the federal government can tax its own tax collectors and assessors any way that it wishes.  What the Supreme Court knew was that Frank Brushaber was an assessor/collector for foreign investors in the Union Pacific R.R., acting as their fiduciary - he was liable for the income tax.  The Supreme Court has also held that no new power of taxation was created by the 16th Amendment (Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916), Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 217 U.S. 165 (1918), and Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)).  Therefore, since no new power or jurisdiction was granted to the government by the 16th Amendment, the revenue being generated for the government by an income tax must come from one of the already existing commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution - foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  See more detail about the Supreme Court decisions at of my Blog.  See more detail about the income tax, including the actual Act of Congress that initiated it at of my Blog.


             The three commerce jurisdictions are listed separately in title 28, “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, chapter 85, “District courts; jurisdiction”:  section 1336, “Surface Board Transportation orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders” in 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1362, “Indian tribes”, is obviously the trade with the Indians jurisdiction.  Section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties”, is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.  This section (1340) is based upon the collection of revenue from importing duties.  See more detail concerning the jurisdiction of internal revenue at of my Blog.


              All Americans who have a Social Security number have been attributed an undistributed dividend as shareholders within a partnership (the S.S. # is the applicant’s number within the partnership).  At title 26 U.S.C. section 1402, “Definitions”, subsection (a), “Net earnings from self-employment”, it defines such income as including all distributive shares (whether or not distributed) from any partnership.  Self-employment tax is also a U.S. possession tax (26 U.S.C. section 7655).  The undistributed dividend is based upon income taxes paid within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws.  This makes all Americans who have applied for a Social Security number unknowingly into internal revenue collectors, and, thus, subject to the income tax.  This undistributed dividend is offset by a foreign tax credit - FICA.  Since internal revenue is within customs (foreign commerce), the U.S. possessions have been deemed to be foreign countries (see 26 U.S.C. section 865(g), section 872(b), and section 2014(g) for examples).  Since the U.S. possessions are foreign countries and since FICA is a U.S. possession tax, then FICA is a foreign tax.    


              To hide all of the above deception, the federal government uses another term, that of “ U.S. resident”.  This is defined at 26 U.S.C. Section 865(g).  It includes the previous terms, “ U.S. citizen” and “taxpayer”, in its definition.  This is what a defendant (victim) is unknowingly charged as in an IRS indictment.  See more concerning “ U.S. resident”, including evidence of the government tampering with the court docket, at of my Blog.


              Why all of this deception?  Because the federal government is bankrupt as the law evidences:  title 11 U.S.C. “Bankruptcy” is implemented by title 11 C.F.R. “Federal elections”.  The Federal Election Commission is charged with implementing the regulations having to do with bankruptcy.  The Federal Reserve bankrupted the federal government in the 1930’s.  But bankrupting the United States federal government really didn’t accomplish what the Federal Reserve (the international counterfeiters) wanted - they want to control everyone and own everything.  So the Social Security scam was invented to force Americans to pay the interest on the international counterfeiters’ loans to the federal government.  Since the federal government is just a tool for the international counterfeiters, that explains why the government continues on its quest for more and more power regardless of who is elected.


              I have the entire Social Security scam exposed on my Blog at ( ) - including my actual court documents that anyone can download.  Court documents are public property.


              All we Americans need do is to re-establish our sovereignty by abolishing the Social Security scam and the Federal Reserve and then establishing honest money.  We Americans are sovereign and the government is made up of public servants.  Put them in their place.


    Comment by Kaptain Steve
    Entered on:

    ************************************* Comment by: Kurt Tischer Entered on: 2009-12-16 17:21:14 @Kaptain Steve: But Kaptain Steve, if "taxes" were voluntary, then they wouldn't BE "taxes", would they? And therefore, the government wouldn't BE a "government", would it? It would just be another voluntary transaction you'd make to just another business involved in providing you a service or product you actually, voluntarily, explicitly consented to purchase. Right? 

    ****************************************** Sounds perfect to me! And Kitty says; "If a person has given permission for another to take some of hir (his/her) property (either before or after the act of taking), then it *is* totally logical that such act is not theft." You miss the point. It must be theft because no one is given the option to opt out in the BEGINNING before all the threats and brainwashing starts. It's like you have a knife in your back and a gun to your head and someone asks you is it ok if I take your wallet? Or, they've been doing this for years, then someone asks you if you think this is theft and you say no? doesn't matter what you say at this point, it is nothing but theft. If you have never really been given the honest choice, there is NO CHOICE and that makes it all theft.
    Comment by Larken Rose
    Entered on:

    Kitty, my point was, they DON'T actually give their permission, but they PRETEND that they did. Had they actually agreed to be robbed, they would be merely stupid. Instead, they retroactively PRETEND to have agreed, when they didn't, and that makes them looney. They don't want to admit that they are being continually robbed against their will, even though it's the obvious truth. So they MAKE UP "consent" where there was none. (It would be fun to do a scientific experiment, to see how many proud collectivists would pay their "fair share" if there was no punishment for not paying. I bet it would be very few. And that would show just how much they really "agree" to being robbed.) 

    Comment by JIM Martindale
    Entered on:


    Kaptain Steve, what you suggest re: all taxes being voluntary is sooo great since it appears as a descriptor of the Title 26 code. HaHaHa.. That's goal of not supporting federal government activities by controlling the purse was exctly why the fed. gov't according to the Constitution was to receive funding by apportionment among the states. There's actually legislation in Indiana right now to place all federal taxes in a special account in the state's possession for placing all federal taxes. Then the legislature votes on whether to make or not. WOWW Now that is an expression of state sovereignty and about time.
    Comment by Steve Smith
    Entered on:

    How stupid

    Comment by Kitty Antonik Wakfer
    Entered on:

    The only major criticism for this humorous piece is with the following lines:

    "If, for example, one points out that "taxation" is merely theft by a
    different name, not only do the thieves object, but the victims of the theft
    also insist that it's not really theft, or that it's necessary theft, or that they
    approve of the theft, or have given their permission for someone to rob them."

    If a person has given permission for another to take some of hir (his/her) property (either before or after the act of taking), then it *is* totally logical that such act is not theft.

    Even so, the dialog which follows that quote makes it clear how foolish it is to take the position that one is actually giving such permission (except, perhaps, with trusted friends).

    Kitty Antonik Wakfer

    MoreLife for the rational -
    Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
    The Self-Sovereign Individual Project -
    Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
    individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting


    Comment by Kurt Tischer
    Entered on:

    @Kaptain Steve: But Kaptain Steve, if "taxes" were voluntary, then they wouldn't BE "taxes", would they? And therefore, the government wouldn't BE a "government", would it?

    It would just be another voluntary transaction you'd make to just another business involved in providing you a service or product you actually, voluntarily, explicitly consented to purchase. Right?

    Comment by Kaptain Steve
    Entered on:

     Great article! We are almost never presented this type of philosophy in public schools or public Universities. We must keep spreading the message. I've always felt all taxes should be voluntary. Send you a check list and you check off where you want your donation to go and how much you want to give. That would be a real check on government. If no one wants to support something, then do away with it.

    Join us on our Social Networks:


    Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: