Are they Rights or Permissions?

I have heard a few people recently exclaim they do not believe in the theory of "Natural Rights" but more in a theory that we, as humans, can do only what outside persons allow us to do or help us to do. This seems a crazy concept to myself, and probably to quite a few of my readers, so I wanted to take a moment to touch on this idea, and to ask for any feedback on the idea of  "permissible actions rather than explicit natural rights"

The beginning of this theory it is said relates to the young, the newly born, the ones unable to provide for themselves to ensure their safety, security, and prosperity. This part of the theory relies on the fact that as an infant, and what I would supposed to be also the case in a geriatric stage, that these beings need help to perform tasks and actions just for their basic survival. This is said to be the stage at which a person would not have a right to anything but rather a dependency on others to perform actions for it and can choose whether or not to do so.
Question: Under this theory I can conclude these people to say that a child has no "right" to live but only a permission to do so under the care of others, is this to say that even after birth, a child, a human being has no right to life and can be killed by its caretakers on a notion that they did not give permission for its survival and chose not to nurture the child until it was self sufficient?

That is a maddening thought to me; one that takes away the most basic humanity of people and subjects them to a form of barbarity and cruelty I do not want to know or ever allow to exist. I would seriously question the morality of anyone who dares to agree to that.


Under this theory all human action is delegated to permissions from what we can label "society". If this society allows us to own a home, we can, but if they do not than we cannot. This point can be taken with all property, actions, and production. In this theory only that which is allowed, by what I am to assume is a majority, can be be done. What a scary theory indeed. A socialistic, communal, decision can affect the lives of everyone. But let us not think of it only in what can be called negative rights or what is not permitted. Let us take this theory to positive rights or permissions.
If this society were to condone and endorse an act of taking someone's life for a small transgression against another, say you ran over their flower garden (if they are allowed to have one) with your car (if you are allowed to have one) and the result of this would be in the norm for the transgressor to be killed by the victim.
What has been done to justify the taking of life? What has been done to rectify the situation other than to kill the other party? What positive effect can come of this?

If in this self indulgent society where permission is a valid use of force and judgement of others, the idea were to arise that an act in violation of one's morals were to become routine and customary, made to be privy to the permission of the majority vote, would they then regard the notion of permission over rights as invalid?

Rights exist regardless of the permission granted by anyone, it is the practice of those rights that is in question of permissibility. In that, a look into private property rights would be more influential.
If a man were to allow or disallow an act in or on their property, it is the act of permission that can be charged as hindering rights.  In that aspect all property owners have a right to refuse or allow whatever actions they feel comfortable with and assume all risks therein in response to those actions. It is still not to say that natural rights do not exist, but that the practice of those rights have been trumped by others natural rights.

This entire argument bases itself on the thought that Natural Rights do not exist when in fact it is a study into the permission of the practice of those rights that is the argument. One can do well to recognize the argument as a fallacious debate on two entirely different aspects of human behavior and interaction.

What Can They Do To Make You Say "No More"?

What would your government have to do to make you fight back? What would they have to do that caused the population to dissent? What act would one agency have to commit for you to stand up and say “NO, I am not taking this anymore!” Not merely voting to change what is being done but to completely abolish those doing it. Question yourself this.

Distrust in the government is nothing new. It is not a new era thing or even something only the younger generations are starting; in fact dissent to control has been taking place since men formed any sort of governance over others. This dissent has seen every age and every reason. It has lived throughout centuries and all over the globe. It fueled The American Revolution and The Civil War. Dissent can be seen as different actions. Maybe it is just the questioning of government, seeking accountability, exposure of immoral acts perpetrated against innocents. It could be the actual physical actions against the state. Either aggressing against the state or not recognizing the State's self-appropriated power. It could be the act of non-compliance, agorism, or removing one’s self from the situations and going “off the grid”.

But the question is What Would Make Someone to Do This? What could be the final straw for YOU that absolutely break any sincere reverence for the state or its offices and officials? For most this isn't even a question they would attempt to answer. For most, the blind allegiance has been ingrained since birth that compliance is fate and resistance is futile. The “Statists” as they are called, see themselves as the masters of the government power and those officials as employees and representatives to their will. This is clearly not the case in American Politics, but let’s let them keep their fantasy. They seek power over others and to form a moral civilization by force, those morals being their own. In their belief of these powers and representation it may be easier for them to answer “Nothing” to this question at first. But could there be something suppressed in them that would cause them to answer? Could there be a line that cannot be crossed? Can there be that unforgivable event that occurs and is the catalyst to a real level of dissent?

Ask yourself these questions.

Is there anything that the TSA could do to me that would make me say “I am not going to let this continue”?

Is there any amount of spying that the NSA can do to me that I will reject their ability and power to do so? 

How much does the IRS have to take before you say it is too much? How much of a slave are you willing to be?

Is there any place that in the world that the military could start a war that would incense me enough to demand them to cease? Is there any amount of people they could target  that would raise a question in your mind about the morality of what they do?

Is there any amount of regulation or mandates that I am uncomfortable enough with that I will resist or simply not comply? 

When is Enough Enough?

This is a question that everyone should try and answer. Everyone should at least attempt to come up with their last straw, their red line in the sand, their own final event.

Why is this so important a question?

The level of intervention into the personal and business lives of all people is of concern to me. It is not a question of how much, but that there is any interjection of government mandates, regulations, restrictions, licensure, theft, murder, coercion and incarceration in the private affairs of citizens. This question gives your self the very definition of what you are willing to put up with, what you will subscribe to, what you will allow to happen, before you finally realize the intrusion into your freedom, the violation of your natural liberty.

So now I leave it to you to answer this for yourself. These answers will be different for everyone.

Is there anything that would make you resist the control of the state?

Is there anything they can do to you that you would fight back?

Is there anything that any department can do to you that you will say “NO”?

Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers

Find me on Liberty.me @TheBeardedLibertyGuy

Like the Jefferson Papers Facebook Page

On Taxes

Taxes are not something most people joyfully or gleefully pay. They are not something that most people claim to benefit from. But people defend taxation for various reasons; they are voluntary or compulsory. Taxes are what some describe as the cost of living in a certain area or to enjoy certain services that this money is supposedly collected for. And then some say all taxation is theft.  Apologists will denounce anyone who dares to "cheat" the system and keep some of their own money. They are a guilty pleasure and an unseen control mechanism to a lot of people.

Tax Time is here and not too many smiles will be found, unless you work for the Government that is...

Individuals and companies, from the last day of January to the 15th of April every year, sit down to try and figure out how much of their money has been taken by the Federal Government and if they can expect some of it back or if they will be forced to "give" some more. The Federal Income Tax has been enforced since 1913 and ever since that time people living in this country have been required to pay part of their wages to support government programs and fund Federal Institutions. Trillions of dollars are taken from the paychecks of citizens before they ever see it.

Why are you defending theft?

There is a saying "Taxation is Theft". Some believe this is an error and that the statement is false in all degrees. But is it? Is taxation theft? The legal definition of theft is the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). With that said, one can question if the pay of a man for his labor is his property of that of the government for which he lives under. Questions can arise if the man has voluntarily submitted himself and his wages to the seizure of his property or if under the definition of theft has been the victim of a crime. Since those persons outside of government employment are in the private sector and those persons have not submitted the wages of their labor voluntarily, but by threat of violence or imprisonment the definition of theft can be applied to the act of taxation of income.

"If, then, taxation is compulsory, and is therefore indistinguishable from theft, it follows that the State, which subsists on taxation, is a vast criminal organization far more formidable and successful than any “private” Mafia in history". -Murray Rothbard-

Those that are in Employment of the government, in whatever capacity and at whatever level, (federal, state or local) are the beneficiaries of these extorted monies as their paycheck.

It has been said that these government workers "pay their own wages because they are taxed also". This is a fallacy. As a person is taxed at a percentage of their income, a person cannot pay into their entire paycheck. If they paid the entirety of their own wages it would be known as volunteering or slavery.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., American Jurist and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932 is quoted as saying, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." This is a popular thought of those who I would say taxation is a guilty pleasure or who feels that their wants should be funded by public means extorted from individuals instead of private and voluntary contributions. The very nature of this statement brings to mind a incredibly different question altogether for me. "Do we have a civilized society?"  That is a question left for another time.

A society based on the theft of wealth cannot be a moral and civil society. The very action of theft is against civility. But in this thought, we can ask ourselves these questions.

Does the act of paying into a general fund benefit the individual outright as much as it would if he would have funded whatever it is by voluntary means?

Can the value of these institutions to the general public be in contest to the value by the individual?

If a man be forced to fund policies and departments that they find immoral, unneeded, or in conflict with their religious or philosophical beliefs.

Murray Rothbard writes in his work "The Ethics of Liberty" that the size of government can be directly affected by the coercive nature of taxation. If the State were to suddenly abolish all taxation and thereby fund their departments and programs through completely voluntary means the size and scope of government would dramatically shrink.

This should be and is touted as the goal of the Neo-Conservatives and Republican Party,but is in complete contrast to their actions and policies. The same can apply to Democrats and Neo-Liberals, as their policies and actions tend to be based more on helping people, excessive taxation steals the money from people they are attempting to help.  It robs businesses of capital and forces higher prices, unemployment and subsequent poverty.

Where does all of this money go?

The mainstream belief is that these monies go to pay for services and programs inside and outside the United States. That would be nice, IF IT WERE TRUE. What is not taught to most Americans is that all the money that is taken in the form of the Federal Income Tax is used to pay off a loan for the previous fiscal year’s budgets. Who is this loan from?  The Federal Reserve loans the US government money at an interest rate. They then sell this debt (or securities) to foreign and domestic banks and individuals. The US Government pays these notes of security to the holders upon payment to the Federal Reserve of its loan. Of course the Federal Reserve does not pay the interest earned to the holders of the securities and instead makes a profit from the transactions. Interesting that a private bank that holds an enforced monopoly on the issuance of money is turning large profits off of the debt of a nation.

You might be wondering why the US debt has skyrocketed in the past and why it is so astronomical now; that is the nature of the Federal Reserve System. Since all money the government, and by mandate of the rest of the country, uses is owed back to the Fed with added interest; and the only way to pay it back is to take out a loan the next year, it is inevitable that this debt is unpayable. For a better explanation, I would recommend the book The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.

Is it cheating to keep your own money?

There are Tax Apologists out there that will become irate when an individual or company is found out to have offshore or international banking accounts in order to skirt paying taxes. The idea that someone who finds a way to keep his or her own property from seizure is seen as a criminal or seen as the bad guy has never really made sense. It is the same as someone who sets an alarm on their car or home: they are protecting their property and assets. The keeping of their own wages or property is the essential goal of Tax abolitionists which is to free everyone of the burden of theft of wages. It’s baffling to think that anyone is against this, but I think the emotional and illogical thought people have is, " If I have to pay then so does everyone else." i.e. the fair tax. To be certain there is nothing fair about the Fair Tax, it is still funneling money away from commerce and savings and it still only applies to certain groups and individuals.

The Fair Tax advocates will debate all day long that their system is better than what we have now, and I will not disagree, however I will say this: it is far from an ideal way to handle things. The entire idea of collecting money to fund programs and departments that the original "victim" may not have voluntarily given to is still present. The idea that money is still being diverted away from private enterprise and given to a bloated, inefficient and expanding government hasn’t changed. The same idea that Rothbard stated is still there: if the department or program cannot be funded by voluntary means it should not be fit to survive on public funding. Much like private business, if customers do not value the product or service, the company will fail and cease to exist. In the opposite of public departments and government offices, there is no measuring stick or ruler to determine if the service is viable beyond the edicts of bureaucrats and politicians wants.

To name a few things that tax monies are used for that would most likely not be funded by voluntary means.

The NSA and its wiretapping programs- Seen as a violation of privacy by a majority, this office and its "service" most likely would fall.

Animal Shelters that euthanize animals- This is a partial subsidy most often and the shelter may or may not survive with voluntary contributions.

The Militarization of America's Police forces and the brutality that they commit on a daily basis-If these police departments were reliant on the surrounding communities support and contributions there would be less of a chance they would commit the heinous acts that they do. Killing family pets and even people are becoming everyday occurrences in America. Changing the way they are funded could force them to rely on community service and protection services without the God Complexes a lot of them have.

Calling on more taxation.

There is a growing movement in America, an added Tax movement. The Robin Hood Tax or The Wall Street Tax is the next big thing for gluttons for monetary punishment. This new tax would add tax onto Wall Street transactions. If any sane individual thinks that this would not have a detrimental effect on the Stock Market, they are gullible and economically ignorant. Any addition to transactions coming from Wall Street would hamper the degree and volume of daily transactions. This would have a negative impact on the formation and expansion of companies and corporations as they will stifle new markets and products. These new taxes, like all others, will be passed to the end consumers, YOU AND I. When a new tax or regulation is added to a transaction of a corporation, the owners of that company will want to reduce any interference in their ability to turn profits (after all everyone is after a profit). That is the reason most of us have jobs; to profit off of our skills and labor. The owners will pass their cost of compliance to regulation or the collection of new taxes down the line until it hits the product on the shelf where the end user, the consumer, picks up the higher price.

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, I understand that this is hard for some to understand and takes much more than a simple blog post by a relative unknown person for many to grasp the concepts I have laid out here. That is why I encourage further reading into the failure and immorality of taxation.  The works of Ludwig von Mises, Murray N Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and so many more are easily found online. Take the time and educate yourself. Learn and apply, it really is that easy.


Follow me on these other Social Media Sites
Twitter @PatriotPapers
FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/travis.wilson.355744
And Now on Liberty.me at TheBeardedLibertyGuy.
Use this Promo Code to join in on the premier Liberty Social Media Site
http://liberty.me?ref=beardedlibertyguy-9522