Wednesday, October 30, 2013

MUST VIEW: The Conversation

(ht Walter Block)


  1. Interesting video Bob. I thought you didn't buy into natural law :)

    1. It is a real stretch to consider this a video about natural rights. It is a video framing government as thieves. This holds whether you believe in natural rights or not.

    2. LOL, yeah, I don't think RW would support the student's assertion that the professor can never be happy because he supports coercive activities. The video is here because it is a good example of how to point out that politicians are thieves.

  2. Surprisingly good production values, but it would have been if Libertarian Guy didn't hit on the Democrat Girl (you know she's a Democrat). They should have made the attraction a bit more subtle.

    That's my movie criticism for the day.

  3. Awesome video, Bob. Really a "must view" and VERY professional. 5 stars.

  4. I can't tell you how many times I have used this ploy to get a hot woman into bed. It works like a charm every time.

    1. Year, but I bet you don't send in somebody else to do the "dirty work"...

    2. Hahahaha! If only...

  5. Would it work also with a neocon chick?

  6. The Bible allows taxation and redistribution.

    A flat rate income tax at this level is not prohibited biblically, just so long as it does not reach the 10% level (I Sam. 8:14, 17).

    Taxation in the Bible

    1. I believe the passage you are looking for is Leviticus 25:44.

    2. The bible says a lot of strange things.

    3. Various books of the Bible permit many immoral things Jerry. Humanity has learned a few things since Samuel was written over two eons ago, two eons at least.

      One of things we've learned is that taxation is theft. It is inherently immoral. Even in the story you cite God discouraged the Israelites from adopting a King. One of God's reasons against it was the taxation the King would bring upon them.

    4. Jerry, you forgot the redistribution part. Where's that called for? You're funny.

    5. Who cares what the "Bible" says? Think for yourself and stop acting like a stooge.

    6. I Samuel 8 says no such thing. God tells Samuel that this king the Israelites want will be bad. One of the reasons he will be bad is because he will take ten percent of everything. This does not imply that taking 9.99999999% of everything is OK.

      Your argument is akin to replying to the statement: "Hitler was bad because he killed 6 million Jews," by saying: "So killing 5,999,999 of them would be OK then."

    7. 1 Samuel 8 is a judgement against Israel, not a prescription for taxation. It's a judgement against the nation because of their disobedience in desiring a human king over God as their king.

  7. Actually Jerry's passages are better 1samual8:17: "He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves." But I got to vote before hand, so really I am just a slave to myself.

    1. "We owe it to ourselves" becomes "We own ourselves"

  8. I thought the way the libertarian led the conversation from the immediately personal to the societal was well done. A couple constructive criticisms: I studied engineering, and hung out with a lot of physics students, I never--ever--once--met one that remotely looked like that. Biology students, yes, physics students, no. Maybe I was just unlucky, Also, the sexual byplay could have been toned down, I was half expecting them to do it on the table by the end of the clip, On the whole, though, I thought it was well done and a good introduction to libertarian ideas for people who may be unfamiliar with them.

    1. I have a degree in physics. I have known a lot of physicists. She was no physicist. ;)

  9. Jerry's best post ever on this site! Amen for pointing out the hypocrisy of the Bible.

    so thquestion goes - r there any universally preferred bbehaviors?

    1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    2. Do unto others as you would have them
      do unto you, for this is the law and the

      What is hurtful to yourself do not to your
      fellow man. That is the whole of the Torah
      and the remainder is but commentary.

      Do unto all men as you would wish to
      have done unto you; and reject for others
      what you would reject for yourselves.

      Hurt not others with that which pains

      Tzu-Kung asked: "Is there one principle
      upon which one's whole life may proceed?"
      The Master replied, "Is not Reciprocity
      such a principle? - what you do not
      yourself desire, do not put before others."

      This is the sum of all true righteousness -
      Treat others, as thou wouldst thyself be
      Do nothing to thy neighbor, which
      Thou wouldst not have thy neighbor do
      to thee.

    3. Best. Comment. EVER!


  10. Voluntary tax is very different than coercive tax. Thou shalt not steal. :)

  11. Unfortunately, the level of education about US tax law is pitiful. The LAW allows the govt. to tax in two ways: capitation/direct or excise/indirect. What we have today is an excise or privilege tax but it is limited in law to just those activities/entities where the govt. has an ownership interest. What most folks believe and practice is that we have a universal tax on all that comes in (the great deception) and the govt. and tax prep industry are happy with that deception. If folks knew the law and followed it; the tax scam would end and all this "tax noise" would go away! See for the details and get free from the scam.

    1. This is one of the most irresponsible posts I've ever seen on this site. Taxation is immoral, yes, but you're implying that there are no consequences to those not paying their taxes. I'm a CPA working in taxes, and I can assure you, if you don't pay your taxes, the government will come after you, not just for the tax due, but for interest and penalties as well. And if you don't pay, they have the legal authority to garnish your wages or throw you in jail.

    2. Joe Cotter; you re-read or mis-understand the post. I did not say to not pay taxes due but that for most folks the tax is not required by law. American business falsely claims that earnings by workers in the private sector are 'taxable' thereby causing the need for the worker to rebut that claim and recover their property. But, how many know this; how many know that the payer company has falsely labeled their earnings as 'taxable'? Few as your comments clearly indicate.
      Just check out the referenced website, get the facts, learn the law and then help your neighbors get free of the scam.
      PS "wages", as contained in the law is a custom defined term and does not mean all that is earned. Check it out!!

    3. 26 USC § 3401 (a)

    4. Anonymous; I've looked at your site and I must say I'm not convinced. In fact, my instincts and 7 years in the business tell me it's a scam designed to sell books to an unsuspecting and uniformed target, though I'd welcome you to try to convince me otherwise.

      On your website, you claim "that the vast majority of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is not the law itself, but is only evidence -- a representation -- of the actual statutes in force, and like in the game of post-office, the real language has been a bit garbled in transmission." This is a flat out lie.

      While there have been numerous variations of the income tax, the current version has been in effect since 1986 (100 Stat. 2085; Public Law 99-514). This law has been amended numerous times and has grown to the monstrosity it is today, but each time the IRC is changed, it is due to new legislation that passes a vote in Congress and is signed into law by the President. In other words, the IRC is law.

      Now, you claim that most workers' incomes are not taxable, however IRC Section 61 defines Gross Income as follows:

      "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

      (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
      (2) Gross income derived from business;
      (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
      (4) Interest;
      (5) Rents;
      (6) Royalties;
      (7) Dividends;
      (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
      (9) Annuities;
      (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
      (11) Pensions;
      (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
      (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
      (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
      (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust."

      As you can see, this is a pretty comprehensive list. A convenient way to remember this code section however is all income is taxable, unless it's specifically excluded. Wages, very clearly fall under the purview of §61(a)(1) as compensation for services, the service being the employee's provision of labor.

      I've seen claims like yours before, and would caution anyone against taking advice from someone saying the tax is not required by law. There have been countless challenges in court which prove otherwise. For anyone interested in reading about some of the common constitutional arguments, try this link

      This site references numerous cases including Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 US 601, 635 (1985) to say that wages are not taxable, however Pollock intimated that a tax on salaries, wages, and business profits would not be a "direct tax" and hence would not have to be apportioned. In other words, while it was held in the Pollock cases that certain taxes were unconstitutional direct taxes (i.e. real estate), this did not, and does not, apply to wages.

    5. 26 USC §3401(a) starts by saying "for purposes of this chapter, the term 'wages' mean ..."

      This definition is specifically limited to Chapter 24 which concerns the collection of income tax at the source. It has nothing to do with the validity of the tax itself. Maybe you have some way of getting around having your tax withheld, but I doubt it.

      Anyway, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here, and you probably know it. If the best you can do is throw out a code reference, which you claim is invalid anyway, you're without a doubt trying to scam people.

      Readers beware. Don't buy this book.

  12. And the command to love your neighbor means approving a 3rd party to steal from him?