But the other side didn’t exclude something as removed as gravity?
You have asserted every argument as by the authority of government. Quite directly in most cases.
You have explained that if I accept the authority of the government then the government has rightful authority. Or that’s All I’ve gotten so far.
Your explanation quite literally can be surmised as “the government says so”.
Actually, not according to us law. You are still liable for taxes even if you leave. But again, it’s unfeasible to assume consent if you don’t move a thousand miles away especially when that would only amount to consenting to some other government by your own reasoning. Again, dodge my bullet or you wanted to get shot. It’s not a reasonable demand for non-consent.
How does an American citizen go about withdrawing consent from something tax money is used for, like say the murder of muslims abroad via the Iraq war?
This is not theoretically true in the US. We are not supposed to have mob rule.
You are now explaining what happens, not justifying anything. It isn’t theft because a majority did it? this runs contrary to the consent argument.
Again you assume the right of a government. If I don’t accept government authority then the nation can’t accept anything for me. Quit making statements that assume you are right as pretext.
But the Jews that stayed, they consented to the gas chamber? Alright then.
A bunch of people came together in Philidelphia and wrote the Constitution.
The Constitution is empowered by “The People”
“The People” established via the Constitution how to:
Establish Justice,
Insure domestic tranquility,
Provide for the common defense,
Promote the general welfare, and
Secure the blessings of Liberty
Via Representation
The justification is that those men entrusted with the authority of the people to establish a government did so via the Constitution, which explicity states what Congress, among other things, can and cannot do.
I assume the right of any people to establish a government that applies to all those within the group.
No, because there was nothing free about the Hilter’s election and without searching, I’m going to go out on a limb and say Murder was still illegal in Germany in the 1930s.
At any rate, this is why I specifically stated my opinion applies specifically to the US because I know fuck all about German politics in the 30s no less.
No. He made it very clear that he was against aparthied and worked to change it.
There’s that money where your mouth is thing again. Notice how much people who were willing to do that through out history garnered so much respect, and in many cases eventually won?
I’m not even arguing that government is wrong or we shouldn’t ever tax, but you guys are kidding yourselves in this consent nonsense. If there is no reasonable alternative and therefore no decision possible, there is no such thing as consent by definition. For good or bad, there is no such thing as consent in taxation. I think you guys should buck up and admit the emperor has no clothes, and that you prefer him naked. You think theft by taxation is justifiable, and you are doing mental back flips to try to convince yourself it isn’t theft.