No ancaps, taxation is not theft.

Sep 2015
It doesn't work, hasn't worked, and won't work until you somehow magically change everyone into saints.
No, that you can not do. It will work as enough of the world assimilates to Communism and Capitalism becomes the minority. It will require a mandatory allegiance to the state, but it will also free you from capitalism.
Nov 2017
It is not poised as an argument but a description. The state steals the wealth of the people against their wlll.

Then make it a fee, have joe the plumber write a check at the end of the year for all of those "services" that the income tax provides. Just think how beautiful that would be, if every single worker was required to write a check on april.15th instead of a large chunk of them waiting for one.
Don't we already have that option? It makes no difference to me how people choose to pay taxes.
Nov 2017
There should be no taxation because there should be no income. The state should provide everyone with each according to their need.

What would the state provide anyone with, and where would they get it? If there is such an apparently magical source of resources, then why is there any need or reason to have the state act as a middleman or gatekeeper? Why not just let everyone access this magical source of resources directly without anyone getting in their way?

Let's also address some economic basics: where do you think resources come from in the first place?
Oops, looks like accidentally skipped my questions I asked you, because you have since responded to posts made afterwards.

Or perhaps you just can't answer them? Which is it?
Dec 2013
Beware of watermelons
Why has this never worked for more than a few weeks?
Have you asked yourself that?
Thats easy.

The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude forceful self-defence. The NAP is considered by some to be a defining principle of natural-rights libertarianism