“No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic a manner as to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None of the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any open, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principals, they have none.”
How many of you have heard the noise that your bodily fluids belong to the government road pirates when they demand it if they suspect you of impaired driving? Somehow, they have managed to circumvent your self-ownership with legal mumbo jumbo and of course, intimidation.
I want to break this down simply. If you did sign a form, then your local badged Orcs would have “express” written consent to chemically test you. Most state codes ape the Federal statute and say that simply by driving on a highway in your state that you are “deemed” to have consented to have a blood or breath test. That is, you never really consented so the State will “deem” you to have consented.
Now many will complain that absent drunk driving laws and enforcement, some will perish. This may be the case but it is still pre-crime. What if we substituted drunk driving with weapons, would the same circumstances dictate that “weapons checks” would prevent most crime? If impaired driving is such a problem, why is anyone allowed to have motor vehicles within five miles of a bar or liquor establishment or restaurant?
The severity of punishment has no statistical relationship to reducing the crime as a pre-crime prophylactic. In the end, if your impaired driving causes property damage, bodily injury or death, you should be held accountable but not before you do harm.
Mark Crovelli makes an interesting observation:
“Another option would be to simply recognize the fact that people are responsible for their actions, and only fine and incarcerate them if they actually cause harm to another person. Yes, this option would mean that we would have to leave drunk drivers alone unless they actually hurt someone, just as we now do with drivers who are sleepy or are decrepitly aged. But, is this not the same standard that we employ in other areas of criminal law? We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to raid the poorer areas of our cities to search out and incarcerate people they think will become criminals one day, simply because the poor are more likely to commit certain crimes. We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to round up and imprison people according to race, based upon the fact that certain races commit disproportionate amounts of crime. Why, then, do we allow the state to do precisely this to drunk drivers, based solely on the assumption that drunk drivers may harm other people, when we would condemn it if it was done to any other segment of society?”
They will deem you doing so. Can you imagine purchasing or leasing any good or service and that is how you seek remuneration or warranty service if not expressly stated but simply deemed. Coercion is the converse of consent, and no consent is needed to defend against invasions.
I’ve explained why voting and the fairy tale called “rule of law” have no more bearing on reality than your ability to keep everything you earn even once you assume room temperature. I’ve told you that the American tax rate exceeds 100%.
Lysander Spooner threw a grenade on this absurd idea of implied consent and blew it to hell.
“Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not then sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract.”
Implied legally means “it never actually happened.”
But the state needs to have implied consent because what sane human being would sign off on surrendering so much wealth and resources but do at the point of a gun? Who would have time for instance to read 3.8 million words in the tax code? All of Shakespeare’s words add up to approximately one million words.
James Cox avers:
“Not only is the theory of “implied consent” logically flawed, but it also obviously does not describe reality. Any “government” that had the consent of its subjects would not need, and would not have, “law” enforcers. Enforcement happens only if someone does not consent to something. Anyone with their eyes open can see that “government,” on a regular basis, does things to a lot of people against their will. To be aware of the myriad of tax collectors, beat cops, inspectors and regulators, border guards, narcotics agents, prosecutors, judges, soldiers, and all the other mercenaries of the state, and to still claim that “government” does what it does with the consent of the “governed,” is utterly ridiculous. Each individual, if he is at all honest with himself, knows that those in power do not care whether he consents to abide by their “laws.” The politicians’ orders will be carried out, by brute force if necessary, with or without any individual’s consent.”
So if you don’t find yourself cajoled, fined, kidnapped, maimed or killed depending on your level of resistance to the government agent’s demands. So his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the statist violence brokers issue logically infers that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. They own you but they’ve simply readjusted the optics for slavery to fit into the new century and give the plantation workers the illusion of freedom.
A tacit assumption or implicit assumption is an assumption that includes the underlying agreements or statements made in the development of a logical argument, course of action, decision, or judgment that are not explicitly voiced nor necessarily understood by the decision maker or judge. These assumptions are made based on your own life experiences, and are not readily apparent in the decision-making environment. A bird that has lived its entire life in a cage has no idea what its wings are for.
I’ll bet some of my readers pay some of these taxes, which are part of your “implied consent” package. And for those of you who say you don’t pay property taxes because you rent or you don’t pay business taxes because you don’t own a business, you are mistaken. You pay both as a sunk cost in the product or service you get in the “above ground” economy. It’s one reason why the Colorado marijuana legalization has led to a boost in sales of underground ganja in the same state.
This is not a comprehensive list.
#1 Air Transportation Taxes (just look at how much you were charged the last time you flew)
#2 Biodiesel Fuel Taxes
#3 Building Permit Taxes
#4 Business Registration Fees
#5 Capital Gains Taxes
#6 Cigarette Taxes
#7 Court Fines (indirect taxes)
#8 Disposal Fees
#9 Dog License Taxes
#10 Drivers License Fees (another form of taxation)
#11 Employer Health Insurance Mandate Tax
#12 Employer Medicare Taxes
#13 Employer Social Security Taxes
#14 Environmental Fees
#15 Estate Taxes
#16 Excise Taxes On Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
#17 Federal Corporate Taxes
#18 Federal Income Taxes
#19 Federal Unemployment Taxes
#20 Fishing License Taxes
#21 Flush Taxes (yes, this actually exists in some areas)
#22 Food And Beverage License Fees
#23 Franchise Business Taxes
#24 Garbage Taxes
#25 Gasoline Taxes
#26 Gift Taxes
#27 Gun Ownership Permits
#28 Hazardous Material Disposal Fees
#29 Highway Access Fees
#30 Hotel Taxes (these are becoming quite large in some areas)
#31 Hunting License Taxes
#32 Import Taxes
#33 Individual Health Insurance Mandate Taxes
#34 Inheritance Taxes
#35 Insect Control Hazardous Materials Licenses
#36 Inspection Fees
#37 Insurance Premium Taxes
#38 Interstate User Diesel Fuel Taxes
#39 Inventory Taxes
#40 IRA Early Withdrawal Taxes
#41 IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
#42 IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
#43 Library Taxes
#44 License Plate Fees
#45 Liquor Taxes
#46 Local Corporate Taxes
#47 Local Income Taxes
#48 Local School Taxes
#49 Local Unemployment Taxes
#50 Luxury Taxes
#51 Marriage License Taxes
#52 Medicare Taxes
#53 Medicare Tax Surcharge On High Earning Americans Under Obamacare
#54 Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (if you don’t buy “qualifying” health insurance under Obamacare you will have to pay an additional tax)
#55 Obamacare Surtax On Investment Income (a new 3.8% surtax on investment income)
#56 Parking Meters
#57 Passport Fees
#58 Professional Licenses And Fees (another form of taxation)
#59 Property Taxes
#60 Real Estate Taxes
#61 Recreational Vehicle Taxes
#62 Registration Fees For New Businesses
#63 Toll Booth Taxes
#64 Sales Taxes
#65 Self-Employment Taxes
#66 Sewer & Water Taxes
#67 School Taxes
#68 Septic Permit Taxes
#69 Service Charge Taxes
#70 Social Security Taxes
#71 Special Assessments For Road Repairs Or Construction
#72 Sports Stadium Taxes
#73 State Corporate Taxes
#74 State Income Taxes
#75 State Park Entrance Fees
#76 State Unemployment Taxes (SUTA)
#77 Tanning Taxes (a new Obamacare tax on tanning services)
#78 Telephone 911 Service Taxes
#79 Telephone Federal Excise Taxes
#80 Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Taxes
#81 Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Taxes
#82 Telephone State And Local Taxes
#83 Telephone Universal Access Taxes
#84 The Alternative Minimum Tax
#85 Tire Recycling Fees
#86 Tire Taxes
#87 Tolls (another form of taxation)
#88 Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
#89 Use Taxes (Out of state purchases, etc.)
#90 Utility Taxes
#91 Vehicle Registration Taxes
#92 Waste Management Taxes
#93 Water Rights Fees
#94 Watercraft Registration & Licensing Fees
#95 Well Permit Fees
#96 Workers Compensation Taxes
#97 Zoning Permit Fees
I know, our beloved state says there isn’t a Value Added Tax (VAT) but we do have a nitrous oxide form of it called the corporate income tax that taxes every level of production in Amerika.
We all know that taxation is theft. We’ve beat that drum here before.
We also know the entire government administered “just-us” system is designed to do one thing and only thing only: maintain and expand government power at every level.
The Feds are even trying to erode your right to remain silent as tacit acknowledgement, now according to the Supremes; you have to verbally recite your wish to remain silent. In a closely contested 2013 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that prosecutors can, under appropriate circumstances, point to an out-of-custody suspect’s silence in response to police questioning as evidence of guilt. (Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 .)
My point is elegantly simple, if you didn’t sign for it or raise your hand to it, you don’t own it.
You are not liable for a debt you didn’t agree to…of any type.
But the government must maintain this fiction because it is an essential pillar to the maintenance of its power.
Fear and obedience is the brick and mortar of the state.
Implied consent is a fiction.
Negan has been in charge of America since 1791.
62 thoughts on “Another Brick in the Wall: The Myth of Implied Consent by Bill Buppert”
In Ohio a friend rerefusea breathalyzer test,refused to provide a urine sample,and refused consent to giving a blood sample.
7 minutes after he signed the refusal to consent form the orcs provided so an automatic drivers license suspension would occur-the hospital staff drew his blood and gave it to the waiting orcs.
There’s no way in hell the orcs got a warrant in 7 minutes at 1am on a Wed. night-Thursday morning.
This bullshit held up through Ohio’s appeals court and whatever fed district court covers NE Ohio.
The reason it was upheld- every judge claimed – just as you stated- that by operating a motor vehicle on Ohio roads, my friend’s blood sample was taken under “implied consent”- after he had refused to submit to any breath, urine, or blood samples being taken- and he had the signed by the orc refusal to consent to breath, blood, or urine being taken from him.
Implied consent my ass.
So, in the absence of moving to another totalitarian locale, my choices are to be a house negro or a field negro? Isn’t life on the plantation just grand?!
I used to carry a certified letter sent to State of New Mexico and its MVD advising that I no longer “deemed”. (Which, as Bill shows, is the flakiest of thin assertions of authority.) And if they took issue, to either counter or acquiesce. Then when they didn’t answer (of course), affidavit to memorialize. And then when they didn’t answer (of course) Default issued. It took a little bit of effort, but seemed well worth the while.
But then I sold the car. Haven’t driven for years. I wondered how they’d answer that fight in court if it had ever become required to do so. Any thoughts?
Pingback: Buppert: The Myth Of Implied Consent | Western Rifle Shooters Association
I’m sort of curious how many of you guys live out in the real world rather than in books written by guys that lived in books written by other guys that lived in their books.
Right now in my dinky backwoods locale there are three property fence line disputes that I know of and no doubt dozens more I’m not familiar with. Absent government it would basically come down to who was willing to draw blood over those fences, which would inevitably be the member of the larger clan with more guns, which would beget more bullying against the the smaller clans until you once again had a monarchy.
Government is something I don’t doubt we need less of, but arguments to the tune of “I didn’t sign up for this so nothing applies to me” is a fancy way of saying “I’m prepared to bend over for the regional tribe with the greatest capacity for violence”
Oh. I guess that tribe is THE GOVERNMENT. So libertarianism comes right back to where we are now. Libertarians are in essence bitching because they’re not capable as an individual of fending off the other tribe’s depredations, so they tout some sort of holy principle of non-aggression which is demonstrably at odds with virtually all the biological drivers of human beings and then cry foul when someone roughs them up without consent. Uhhh, what the heck were you expecting?!
Anyhow, take solace that if you don’t have decent tribe then even if the government disappeared tomorrow then you’d have a new tribe to treat you just as badly in about a week. How you guys can use Negan as a metaphor and miss that inevitability is somewhat strange.
Kudos for your other work though. It’s always well written.
>>> Anyhow, take solace that if you don’t have decent tribe then even if the government disappeared tomorrow then you’d have a new tribe to treat you just as badly in about a week <<<
Interesting conditional, looks true. But you left out what happens if we do.
Then you either get to dominate or be dominated.
Again, why do you think human nature is going to suddenly change?
Lol, pretty sure it takes many thousands of years for our nature to change. What does that have to do with whether or not YOU ought to dominate or be dominated? You make it sound like “neither” isn’t an option. That’s false.
>>> they tout some sort of holy principle of non-aggression which is demonstrably at odds with virtually all the biological drivers of human beings and then cry foul when someone roughs them up without consent. <<<
Wow, you're driven by nature to rough people up and you can't control it? That's interesting and thanks for sharing; odd thing to share in public though. Just for the record, my nature is that I can control any such urges.
Or are you saying that you're not human and so this isn't your nature? Either way, it's a remarkable confession that you believe the only way this natural urge of yours can be contained is to have some other people do something. Lol, and they should begin by writing something down! You might wanna check that premise; sounds kinda absurd offhand.
Jump straight to personal attacks. Very noble! Of course I only deal in history, statistics and observation rather than projecting my own modus operandi on the entire world and moaning that if only the government were gone then everyone would be free to be wonderful human beings.
A world populated by clones of myself would get along just fine, but I’m keenly aware that non-predatory voluntaryists are a minority, and if they weren’t then nobody would have to have this conversation, would they?
In short, savages exist in large numbers. But libertarians go out of their way to misjudge human nature to the same degree that communists do.
It might help if you understood the claim(s) before you challenge them. You seem like a bright chap but you consistently argue against strawmen.
First, about the last thing I’d want is a world populated by clones like me. That would be unbearaby boring. So I’m not sure where you got such a crazy idea.
Your retorts are inevitably of the same form. “Bad people exist, so it’s impossible to be neither Ruler nor Ruled.” That’s just absurd, a total non sequitor. Of course one needs to defend against bad people, but what does that have to do with any of this? It’s a given; it’s true in all scenarios.
Just for starters, you might look to see how well your proposal works. Are there more or fewer bad people when thuggery is institutionalized? Never mind the obvious logic of it—WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SAY?
But I don’t like arguing the practical, because I think the moral IS the practical. So it’s on you to demonstrate why it’s moral to rule others, OR moral to be ruled. I don’t think you can do that. But go ahead and give it a shot. Don’t tell me that you figger bad guys will take over, or that you figger there’s no other way to do it.
Tell me why either ruling others is moral, or why being ruled is moral. Absent that, you’re saying nothing at all except that you’re very afraid. Okay, so you’re very afraid…what’s that got to do with me? If it’s any help, almost always, “Fear is a liar.”
I say find the courage to live as you know is proper.
But libertarians go out of their way to misjudge human nature to the same degree that communists do.
Really? Human nature misconstrued?
I certainly don’t count myself in the libertarian mainstream but on the extreme edge. The concept of the maximum state and the non-state e.g., communism and anarcho-capitalism are two concepts asymmetrically opposed. Asymmetrical opposites do not occupy poles on a scale of shared values. One is not a negative of the other, as one necessarily infers the existence of rulers and one does not. Nor does one occupy part of a continuum extending down from the other, like rule by political diktat in relation to the rule by political diktat ideal. They are not symmetrically related. They are opposed because their specific contents are adverse. Whereas the communism is characteristically concerned with instantiating a maximum state, anarcho-capitalism is primarily concerned with a non-state existing via rules established voluntarily whether through Burke‘s Democracy of the Dead or the particular rulesets in the region or conclave. Different values inhere to each. Their opposition is in principle. Consequently, they cannot be conflated without obfuscating their distinctive qualities, thereby casting doubt on the meaning of the either as a political ideal.
In short, you live in total anarchy everyday; in the end, good or bad, we mundanes pay for our errors (unlike politicians and their minions who radically socialize their mistakes and transgressions) through a feedback cycle. The state has yet to perfect a means to regulate 100% of our time expended.
In the end, you have to ask yourself, do I need a a massive authoritarian mega-state to threaten me with violence to keep me from harming my family and friends because I have no internal moral compass?
No, to be sure you will have ownership of your real estate, you insure it. The insurers then assess how insurable your asset is, and you know whether or not you should plant/construct upon it.
And the insurer is basing their analysis off what?
Your deeds vs their deeds? Witnessed by who? Surveyed initially by who else? From where did they derive their authority? And what if it’s over some dinky plot of 100 acres or less. Who even said anything about planting or constructing? What if the land is functionally worthless but you object to it being stolen on moral grounds? Why should you be required to part with your money merely to keep what’s yours? Isn’t that a form of fine or taxation?
I’m sure I’ll get replies to the effect of “hah hah this sheep can’t comprehend the mechanisms of a free market”. Not fussed. All this foolishness ignores the realities of the utterly unpleasant world we lived in when judicious ruling was thin on the ground and you could basically murder anyone you liked if you drew enough water from the town well.
But you know what they say. “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.”
“From where did they derive their authority?”
That’s the question you need to answer and it’ll all fall into place. Seriously…think about it, look at the facts and figure out the ONLY place from where authority can derive.
“All this foolishness ignores the realities of the utterly unpleasant world we lived in when judicious ruling was thin on the ground and you could basically murder anyone you liked if you drew enough water from the town well.”
Where do you get this stuff? Your mind and its fantasies have carried you away. You live on Earth, now…your (false) imaginations of other times and places mean nothing.
If you answer the first question above, you’ll also see that the pleasantness and unpleasantness of your existence isn’t dependent on anyone else. Nobody can make your life pleasant or unpleasant but you. Your existence, your sovereignty, your authority, your happiness…all of these depend on you. That may be scary but it needn’t be. It’s just the way it is, that’s all.
Voluntarism/Consensualism isn’t built upon dreams and fears, your charges of “utopian” notwithstanding. It’s built upon a simple recognition of a simple fact of our nature, that we exist as individual beings driven by our own volition.
Free will exists…would you like to challenge that too? The reason Govco NECESSARILY leads to all the rotten things it always does, is because it tries to make the Sun rise in the west.
Open your eyes already. “The truth shall set you free.”
“Right now in my dinky backwoods locale there are three property fence line disputes that I know of and no doubt dozens more I’m not familiar with. Absent government it would basically come down to who was willing to draw blood over those fences…”
Fascinating, isn’t it? The inability to recognize that the condition described exists NOW, not in the absence of government but in the presence of same, in one of the most regulated areas (real estate ownership) which government has declared itself to be the sole arbiter for & of; yet you posit bad things gonna happen if gummint warn’t here.
You speak to the larger problem also, not only do roads suck but they are expensive under government auspices and people are so bred to worship the state (thanks, government mind laundries K-PhD). There is not a single instantiation of government in which their provision of a good and service is cost effective or just plain more effective than what unchained individuals can deliver. Not one.
So your argument is, what?
I thought you guys were supposed to have a better system, but when anyone asks you for an example of how a common problem would be resolved under your preferred system you just mock the questioner or complain that it’s already a problem now so the point is moot.
Sadly, however, it lends itself to the impression that you guys really have no idea how this would all play out. You basically just want to jump into the dark because you’re convinced it would all work out nicely (at least for yourselves) and any evidence to the contrary is all “brainwashing”. Evidence for your argument? Apparently unnecessary. ‘Cause “some guy got shot by a policeman or had to pay taxes and it’s not fair”.
Why can’t you guys simply provide understandable, real world solutions to the common examples of conflict that people give you?
Why is it so hard for you?
For crissakes, why would you even consider that it’s someone else’s responsibility to figure out your life? You don’t strike me as some sort of moocher…am I wrong?
IMO you need to step back and take a look at what you’re saying. You’re saying that with knowledge of what happens with governments–over 200 million INNOCENT corpses in the last century along–we need to stick with it because we don’t know exactly what’ll happen if it were different.
As I say, step back and LOOK at the logic of that argument.
There is a book called “The Voluntary City“, just chock-full of historical examples. Might be worth a read, assuming you actually want proof.
Also, there is this thing called “binding arbitration”, even now (in this statist hellhole) used more than the government-inflicted court system for resolving disputes.
@Wombat – I can never get a straight answer to this question: exactly how much government should there be? You say this – “Government is something I don’t doubt we need less of…” Okay then, how much less?
Philosophy moves the world and there are two freight trains heading straight for each other on a single main-line track. In the middle, where they shall crash, is a single truth: Taxation is extortion and hence theft.
Negan would run the DROs in the ancap dystopia as well, and would say there’s implied consent to the NAP and if you didn’t buy his DRObamacare bronze at least, he’d lay seige so no electricity, roads, or water beyond rain for you.
Hours of philosophical navel-gazing and whining, but not one minute to repealing a tax or regulation.
You aren’t doing it. Do you expect me to do the heavy lifting or the liberty fairy? Spooner’s words are 200 years old, and there were yet free places. No one FOUGHT for or defended liberty. Just more whiny words about how life is unfair and people aren’t very nice. Duh.
Why are you here? If words are too dusty, don’t read. Don’t like philosophy? Don’t read or contemplate. Your decision, Helot.
World War One. World War Two. US Civil War. Holodomor. Khmer Rouge. Cultural Revolution, to name offhand just six instances of government perpetrated mass slaughter and destruction. I’m sort of curious whether you’ve got the conceptual capacity to grasp that those and countless others are “out in the real world”, and how you can miss the inevitability of such when humanity is hoodwinked by – among other means – the bogus notion of “implied consent” into accepting that “regional tribes” (with involuntary membership and forced support, i.e. governments) are the only possible means for individuals to collaborate for the purpose of resisting aggression.
Or the only means to resolve property fence line disputes.
>”Or the only means to resolve property fence line disputes.”<
Simple. How do you resolve the dispute absent a higher authority if both sides genuinely believe they are right and are unwilling to concede?
Tell me. It's not too hard, is it?
I'm sure your capacity for explaining a recourse for this problem, so common throughout history, is not limited to waxing lyrical about historical genocides, is it?
No, it’s not hard at all. If both parties have made a commitment to living together peacefully–i.e., chosen (promised) the NAP–then whatever property disputes there are, will take a back seat to that.
If both parties didn’t, then I guess one of ’em may die. You might notice the practical implications of this, since you seem very obsessed with those. If those who’ve chosen the NAP are stronger than those who haven’t, then all those who haven’t will eventually be dead. In your verbiage, “problem solved.”
>>> Negan would run the DROs in the ancap dystopia as well, and would say there’s implied consent to the NAP and if you didn’t buy his… <<<
No doubt. That's why it would help to understand what the NAP is. It's not a rule to be enforced by an institution, but rather a personal choice. Specifically, it's the sort of choice that's a promise. That the choice has to be defended is true in all scenarios; that's a simple fact of all choices like this.
So if you don't wish to make that promise, then have at it. But saying you personally prefer the thugs that are presently getting away with it, versus thugs who may not get away with it when they're not so well defended and subsidized…well, that doesn't tell us very much except that you don't value human life as much as some of us. Apparently, not even your own. Personally I find that sad, but I'll get over it. Your choice, your responsibility, your consequences. Ain't my zoo and you're not my monkey.
But somehow, you think I'm yours. "Heavy lifting," you say? Nobody asked you to do a damn thing, at least not here. And yet you believe that others should do the heavy lifting for you…whether through their wealth or their "service." There's a word for that…"hypocrisy."
Sorry for so many comments Bill, but after a post like that I'm not going to resist pointing out the gurgling for what it is. Except at your request, of course.
Lay on, Jim, make havoc.
While I agree with you, I believe the baby is in danger of being thrown out with the bathwater in some areas. Implied consent is MISUSED, but like firearms the abuse of a concept/tool does not entirely negate its usefulness. While implied consent in the face of .gov regulation is about 90% farcical at this point, in the private sector there’s obvious advantages to it. The most obvious case would be if you are unconscious and bleeding out, there is implied consent to life-saving medical help. Analogous to it in the business world would be things like implied warranty of merchantability etc. when a person clearly has 1) a chance to make a decision about it and 2) by their actions clearly shows what the decision made was.
The modern legal fiction about implied consent fulfills those two tenets in the barest of ways, and in regards of transportation hardly at all. The implementation of implied consent has been abused, but between individuals we use it all the time with pretty decent efficacy. The human mind naturally finds the quickest way between two points and we imply much between each other. Doing so prevents wasted time and resources in business and personal dealings, but like anything it is subject to abuse. Perhaps the biggest fiction of .gov’s definition of implied consent is that there can be no withdrawal of consent, making it anything but what they claim. Generally I find that to be the biggest distinction between public and private definitions of consent. In regards to the idea of social contract theory, implied consent is rubbish…which I think is the major thrust here. The less cohesion of a community, the more technical, rigid and numerous the laws are, to provide a legal rather than moral backstop to antisocial behavior.
“…distinction between public and private definitions of consent.”
Jesse, my respect for you will allow me to be blunt…you’re off in the weeds. Definitions, my ass. Consent is consent and it may be the easiest thing in the universe to identify. You can ask a guy and whatever he says…that’s the truth. “Consent” can mean nothing else because that’s what consent IS.
“Implied consent” means someone else is doing the consenting for the actor…in their own minds yet, by implication. This action has never happened and never could—that’s what consent is and any other definition is false-to-fact. And if we seek to be rational, that’s what a bad definition is…one that’s false-to-fact.
“…Implied consent is MISUSED.”
Here’s your meta-error BTW. Consent is misused, sure. Lots of people are assholes and lots of people do immoral things. It’s true and it’s worthy of discussion…I’d bet you’d be right on most all of it.
The meta-error is this. It doesn’t matter socially. Socially all that matters is what someone does, duh. And if there are those who are a sufficient threat to you living as you wish, then it’s on you to figure out how to stop them. You, in CONSENSUAL interaction with others. If you choose gangland violence and hope to be part of the biggest gang–as we (Americans) have been all of our lives–then choose it and live it.
But of course, I’m sure that’s not what you really wish to do. Same for almost everyone. That’s why I so strongly suggest that they don’t do it. But at least recognize it for what it is…so that YOUR consent is known to be just that, especially by you.
Ultimately that’s all that matters since ultimately we each live–and die–with the knowledge of our own values and what we actually chose. Swann—“All action is first BY the self, UPON the self.”
Choose life. Choose liberty. Choose happiness.
Jim, sorry for the long delay but busy doesn’t being to describe my schedule lately. Implied consent may not be what you define as consent, but the legal and common use of that term we both understand. Perhaps you know a better/more accurate word for it, but that is an aside. Every time you use a public restroom there is implied consent. I hardly doubt you call the owner of said restroom and ask his consent for X amount of TP and his use of the facilities. You imply that by their existence and common custom that you are permitted to use them. One could say that by your own logic you admit to theft of goods (maybe conversion) from a number of seedy establishments of ill-repute (I kid). You may disagree, but I see a distinction between private and government interactions. In esoteric terms it is a distinction without a difference, but in 2017 America there is according to a whole bunch of dudes with guns that force me to operate under that assumption. The majority of business runs on the delegation of consent and proxy authority. Given they are private entities, I cannot see why anyone would have an issue with a free individual giving another individual the authority to make decisions on behalf of them within certain parameters. I couldn’t do my job without implied consent, and neither could I if I did not give it to those that work for me. One cannot give explicit consent for every possible situation to arise with every actor, ergo there is a need for general powers. Whether that is implied consent or not seems to be the sticking point. The crux of the matter here is that while it isn’t tyranny in the private sector, it often translates to such in the public sector.
In respect to your later comment, that delegation of power I referred to as implied consent, is indeed misused. I could care less if it is done so privately, as the natural course of it is allowed to play out (firing, loss of business, bankruptcy ect.). When delegation is done like that in the public sphere, a) it’s unlawful on its face and b) it is generally misused without consequences (thin blue line ect.). It matters socially because I’m forced to interact daily with public sector and that misuse is a threat to my life and family’s welfare. When I’m forced at gunpoint to accept the fiction of the public sector’s ‘implied consent’ I give them, then a good starting point with a lot of people is demanding accountability for it. I’m an unwilling third-party to it and thus I at least have a right to demand explanation and redress within this ‘social contract’ I am forced to operate within.The distinction is again one of philosophical v. realpolitik. Privately I have the luxury of veering off into esoteric things, but publicly I generally only deal in reality and what/how we can change that to a more favorable position. Rinse and repeat until we change the entire paradigm ala fabian socialism in reverse. We didn’t get here gradually and while abolishment of the concept is the goal, the first step is accountability.
Thanks for the thoughtful riposte, as usual.
You’ll note that if private business uses implied consent, it tends to be in the favor of the consumer like unlimited lifetime warranties and such. Now, are abuses possible? Indeed but in the private sphere, reputation and consumer loyalty tend to trump the government’s more aggressive tactics to drain more of your time and money for the tacit acknowledgement on your part that you are a bodybag for the statist vampire. Private business doesn’t operate that way and can’t.
The less cohesion of a community, the more technical, rigid and numerous the laws are, to provide a legal rather than moral backstop to antisocial behavior.
You’ll also notice that the more specific the laws on the books, the more loopholes are created. Discussed in great detail here.
Business in AnCapistan will be two armed strangers meeting for the first time, exchanging for a transaction and leaving with contact information for future business and their weapons never left the holster.
Whether being a libertarian or just a non-conformist, there are many who don’t care to participate in all the mass circuses. I don’t go to ball games, or NRA Conventions, or political rallies, and yet I’m called the bad guy for not being a follower of idiotic groupie behavior. I’ve tried to fight the tax and drivers license issues to no avail, my friends and neighbors love rules and make it clear, they don’t like non-conformists, pretty much like here on the blogs. You deserve whatever you get for not following “the rules”.
Mankind has shown itself to be composed of monkey-see, monkey-do behavior, and try as much as we would like, we still can’t get past monkey behavior. All the great thinkers have written volumes of works on independent thought and freedom, and in spite of trying to use our brains and expand their use, the masses drag you back down to illiterate monkey behavior because that’s where they’re comfortable. They can’t deal with free thought outside the prescribed rules.
And they’re always looking for that odd nail that sticks up above the rest.
People don’t want to look reality in the face; the psyche must be protected.
Sorry to play Devil’s advocate here, but you did sign a form; namely, your driver’s license application. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle on public land, e.g. the vast majority of roads, you subject yourself to public authority. Now you have your say with regards to the nature of that authority, but by acknowledging the fact you live in a democratic society, you must submit to the will of that authority. If you don’t like it, you are welcome to drive on your own roads.
Readers will fully understand why you signed ‘anonymous’.
You’ve got a point about the roads. If you drive a motor vehicle you better act like a subject. Problem is, in whatever ‘anonymous’ state you may live in, a ‘motor vehicle’ is for commercial transport. Meanwhile, licensure is too obvious a problem to waste comment space.
But that’s all an aside. Maybe you can be that first person to show the facts to support your idea that anyone must submit to the will of democratic society just because we physically live here. Not because yo say so, or because it is ‘obvious’, so much so that no one yet has demonstrated it Ex facto jus oritur.
How does someone of your opinion even find their way to ZeroGov? Not a rhetorical question.
Bill answered this at the outset. If you really did consent by signing the drivers license application, it would be express consent. It would no longer be implied.
N.B. – Not that your ideas are not considered. In fact, if you can provide facts and proof to support your opinion, you’d have a captive audience. But, you can’t. So, you won’t.
Jesse James @April 30, 2017 07:54: “The less cohesion of a community, the more technical, rigid and numerous the laws are, to provide a legal rather than moral backstop to antisocial behavior.”
Certainly true, but your other writings have given me the impression that you’re reversing cause and effect. The lack of cohesion is caused by the proliferation of laws, not vice versa. And the “moral backstop” is eroded by the State, i.e. the idea that it is legitimate and necessary for some individuals to be exempt from the moral law applicable to everyone else, that is, those not elements of the State.
SemperFi, 0321 @April 30, 2017 09:45:
Well said. I also like the way Frank Zappa put it (slightly paraphrased, from a not wholly dissimilar context): “[T]hat, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”
Mr. Buppert, I very much appreciate what you do, and I admire your fortitude in the face of the shit-flinging by, as itor eloquently denoted them over at WRSA: the worshipers of State with their invocations for Essential Tyranny.
Pingback: Another Brick in the Wall: The Myth of Implied Consent - The Libertarian Institute
TRULY GREAT ARTICLE
Freedom has been eroded so greatly that these words will seem like jibberish to most. Destruction of logic and critical thinking has lead to such a place as find ourselves.
The problem with all of this is that men are NOT angels. Those of us who hold a Christian worldview understand that there IS ultimately no solution in this world. Men are fallen, rebellious creatures. The rugged individual may find himself a few folks within which the NAP will work … for a time. But the fundamental nature of man will cause ANY system (or “non-system” such as AnCap) to fail. I see myself as veering towards “Christian anarchism” and will fully expect fallen humanity to always get worse over time.
That being said, I am certainly quite agreeable with de-fanging .gov “authorities” so that they can leave me alone. I would gladly not pay property taxes and will privately contract (ie toll roads) as an example. As a wise man said “The Eighth Commandment says ‘You shall not steal’, NOT ‘You shall not steal unless 51% of you vote to steal from the other 49%.’ Making the argument for the problems of the state within which we find ourselves is great, but I have yet to see solutions. The rise of cryptocurrencies are a start, and distributed networks for information exchange serve freedom as well. Critical mass for true change? I am not holding my breath.
The problem with all of this is that men are NOT angels.
Thanks for the insightful observations.
Which is the strongest argument against empowering the inevitable psychopaths who seek the ring of power.
Buppert’s Corollary to Acton’s Axiom: “Power attracts the corruptible and absolute power attracts even worse.”
“Those of us who hold a Christian worldview understand that there IS ultimately no solution in this world.”
Uh huh. So why would a person stay in a world of no solutions when he could instantly enter a world where he believes everything is solved?
Lemme guess…you got another story why that’s no good either.
When the hell will the bullshit be enough already?
“why would a person stay in a world of no solutions”
For the same reason you don’t blow away cops who pull you over.
Because it’s not the absolute top priority.
To most people, dying a pointless death is not as valuable as marrying off your daughter, or seeing you first grandkid, or growing old with the love of your life.
You want to throw away your life, go boss around some cops. See what happens. Bill might mention you in some column about cops murdering serfs (then again, he may not) and most likely we’ll never again hear of Jim Klein…
“To most people, dying a pointless death…”
Oh, I agree in principle Steve. I also think there ARE solutions…pretty easy ones in fact. Thing is, I was responding to what was written. Apolodoc made the point that in the “Christian worldview,” there are no solutions to be had here on Earth. I’m pretty sure that in the Christian worldview all problems are, ahem, solved at death. So it strikes me as strange that a person would opt for “nothing solved” over “everything solved.” But there it is.
I understand, though. Logic never was the strong suit of religionists. Not that I care, you understand…to each his own and no harm, no foul. I was just addressing the illogic of the claim, which is why I know the only retort is yet another story to resolve the apparent contradiction.
In Hayek’s book “The Road to Serfdom” there is a chapter, “Why the Worst Get On Top”. Is having the worst on top really so much better than having nobody on top?
The least angelic among us are those on top.
Perhaps any system will fail, true. But the bar is set very low right now. It would be amazing if we couldn’t do better than this.
Solutions fill many forums, at any part of the spectrum o fideas. The “most correct” amongst them are still worthless without action. Here, for the one life you and everyone else have to live, how FRNs are spent, and choice to self-assess income tax (thereby actually approving the funding of much of the nonsense) are probably the largest direct detriments that offset many peoples’ opinions of how things should work. Spending and tax aren’t sexy, but they are potent.
“thereby actually approving the funding of much of the nonsense”
Right. Keen eye. It’s one reason why I dedicated 2017 to the topic of complicity.
Mr. Klein said “. I’m pretty sure that in the Christian worldview all problems are, ahem, solved at death. So it strikes me as strange that a person would opt for “nothing solved” over “everything solved.” ……. I understand, though. Logic never was the strong suit of religionists. Not that I care, you understand…to each his own and no harm, no foul.
It is always comical to me when people purport to make a logical argument and demonstrate thereby their own inability to employ logic.
True enough, Mr. Klein, that the Christian worldview denies the possibility of perfection in this world and anticipates perfection in the afterlife. Unfortunately these premises are not joined in any way. In your smugness you have offered muddled thinking instead of logic or reason. The only way to wrestle your words into the realm of logic is to discard your first premise as not germane and to add to the second the assertion that the highest value for the Christian is the most rapid attainment of perfection in the afterlife. Doing so would at least give you a valid argument – albeit one easily refuted by the rebutting the assertion that the highest value for the Christian is the quickest way to heaven.
Anyone with the most superficial understanding of Christianity would know that love of neighbor and love of God easily trump a quick path to heaven as the highest value. Rather than taking such an illiterate shot at Christian thought you would be better served to spend a little time familiarizing yourself both with Christian thought and the fundamentals of reason.
DB I can only respond to what’s written, not what everyone’s thinking. Apolodoc wrote of solutions, not perfection. I’ve got nothing at all against religionists; ain’t none of my business. But logic is my business (in a fashion), so that’s what I was addressing. All you’ve done is confirm the validity of my conclusion…
“…which is why I know the only retort is yet another story to resolve the apparent contradiction.”
“Unfortunately these premises are not joined in any way.”
Lol…that’s why it’s disjointed stories and not logic!
Arguing on this topic is sort of an exercise in futility. I don’t disagree with the morality or even the spirit of the post. And I don’t disagree that “dominating or being dominated” is an awful choice to have to make. But I do also agree that human nature isn’t going to be changed, and as a result, there ARE always going to be those who attempt to dominate (e.g. in a WROL scenario) and those who would be the first in line to BE dominated.
I don’t love our government, nor their agents, but I feel that, all things being equal, they ARE a known quantity, versus what might pop up in WROL. I would also classify myself as a non-predatory voluntarist. There are a lot of amoral opportunists out there, on both ends of this spectrum. Those who want to take advantage of others to ACTIVELY steal (government, thugs, government-thugs) and those who want to take advantage of others to PASSIVELY steal (welfare recipients). I want NEITHER of these things. I want to take care of myself, provide for myself, leave others alone, and be LEFT alone. But to EXPECT this, even though it’s technically a God-given right, technically NOTHING is a right as long as the next guy wants to bash you over the head to take it. In that case, your “God-given right” is an idealistic standard with no teeth. God-given rights also need to be defended, or they will be taken away. Sad but true.
(They say that a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Funny thing is, if you take the form of government out of the equation, you still have two wolves and a sheep, and they STILL vote, they just don’t make a big to-do about it.)
Your own argument supports the existence of this logic. The government comes in and “deems” something. They just deemed one of your God-given rights out of existence. And what are you going to do about it? What difference does it make if this is a “government”, which illegitimately assumes power over citizens, or a roving bandit, who illegitimately assumes power over strangers minding their own business? Either way, you have to do something about it, or live with the consequences. Otherwise, it’s just complaining.
Again, I’m not a fan of the government or the tax…”structure”, if you could call it that. But I do like that it’s somewhat of a known quantity, as opposed to a bullet to the back of my head as I’m picking berries in what turns out to inadvertently be “someone else’s” valley in a WROL scenario. I guess there are a lot of unforeseen “perks” to living in civilization. People aren’t quite as apt to kill you for accidentally trespassing on their acreage. There are certain customs, and expectations, and methods for accomplishing things. I think when people write articles like the one in question here, they look only at the BAD things about our society, and completely overlook the benefits. True, these benefits aren’t entirely free, there are at least 97 taxes to be paid in order to realize them. BUT, you have a place to live, and reasonable personal security, and SOME degree of wealth (you’re reading this on a computer at a desk and chair in a comfortable abode having eaten dinner I assume) and an expectation that things will generally be the same tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day. (And don’t get the wrong impression, I am amassing a MASSIVE stockpile, in case it’s NOT the same tomorrow. If SHTF at some point, it will have been prescient. If I go to my grave an old man, on a day much like today, I’ll chalk it up to valid but overly-aggressive planning.)
I don’t know. It’s not wonderful, it’s not utopia, but I have a feeling that our system is a lot closer than anything thus far suggested. If you don’t like something (taxes, “deemed” consent) then fight against it. We even have a system for that. It may largely be rigged, but seriously, come on, it’s not that bad. Or, you could be right, and I could just be one of the brainwashed masses, come to spread my disease…
That was a great comment BH!. You speak for about a zillion people, maybe even a plurality. I hope.
When all is stripped away, it amounts to a fear of the unknown. In some cases, that can be highly rational. Here, I’d suggest not.
Why? Because we’re not talking about some action you take; we’re talking about your very life. Specifically, who owns it. ANY admission of ANY involuntary coercion is wrong IF you own your life. That’s WHY you don’t wish to be dominator or dominated and IMO no practical gain can possibly trump that, at least not in any social context.
So what? Well, you get one life and it’s gonna be however you choose. No take-backs and no do-overs. It’s the ONLY thing in life that’s fair…we each get exactly one.
So do you really want to trade what you know to be the good (by your very own explanation) for what you know to be bad (as you also clearly identified) with that one shot in life?
That’s why the real key to this is having the courage to go against 5,000 years of bullshit philosophy and say that your life IS worth it and that you damn well are going to live it to your best. There’s an extensive derivation of that, one which looks at facts and so can be said to be objectively true…but only IF one wishes to live as a fulfilled, happy human. There must be an end or a goal to judge value and subsequent action. “Of value…to whom and for what?
So those who don’t wish to live as fulfilled happy humans, can just go right on doing what they do. They’re the same as dead anyway, whether they’re breathing or not. They should present no different challenge to rational folk than cougars or gnats…just more animals to defend against.
All that really matters is that those who DO wish to live those happy lives, make that choice and commit to it. Contra to what many will say, it takes no rules; it just takes that fundamental decision and then the fortitude to stick with it…aka defend it.
BTW almost always…”Fear is a liar.”
I won’t argue against what you said, but I will ask, in response to your comment: “There must be an end or a goal to judge value and subsequent action”…who judges? And who witnesses? One of my closest friends, he has accused me (humorously, in context of something else I once said) of seeking “transcendence”. Again, I’m not arguing with you, not in the least, hoping to further the discussion. But how do we KNOW if we’ve screwed up or if we’ve done right? Once we’re dead and gone, it’s over. I’m personally a…oh gosh, I’m a Christian atheist. I believe in and support Christian morals and values, and I promote them and argue FOR them, but I’m not personally a believer. But when the end comes, lights out, that’s kind of IT here. If we had a miserable life, and we fought, for better or for worse, and we hated our existence, then did we win, did we succeed?
Maybe that’s the lynch-pin that is at the heart of the discussion. I’m personally OK with, to some degree, going along to get along. You can be damn sure that I’m not happy about the taxes, the regulations, all that crap. And I give them hell to the extent that it makes sense in my little corner here. But I DO go along with it, more than maybe some, because I figure, the possibility of actually ending up in jail, despite the “impropriety” of the infrastructure, it’s STILL jail. I just want peace. I have loaded guns strewn about my house, and if and when the day comes that, IT happens, I figure I haven’t sacrificed ENOUGH for freedom, so it’s my turn.
But part of freedom, part of society, which I think we ARE all on the same page essentially about — a society of cooperation and peace — I’m not the guy to throw a wrench in things personally, not the first guy. Someone else is going to start the shytstorm. Until that time, I’m the quiet guy, who minds his own business, pays his taxes, and STFU…until you mess with me. And I mean, MESS with me.
Again, you get no argument from me, I’m not the most social guy, but I don’t want a problem with anyone. Unless that problem comes knocking on my door. (e.g. actual violence) Then, as they say, “that’ll be the day…” If this makes me a gnat or a cougar (I’m a guy, so maybe a mountain lion?) then, unfortunately, I think that’s what I am.
Whew, ultra-sensible again. Not much to argue about, but I’ll point out that all those innocent civilians being shot into mass graves–or tortured or gassed or on and on and on–that’s pretty much how they figured too.
Your judgment of you is the one that counts. Beyond that, the state of reality is what determines whether or not any of us is proceeding rationally. You gotta do what you believe to be right..
I see what you’re saying. It’s basically straight-out Pragmatism…your sincere belief that if you go along to get along, you will be spared the misery. I have no great argument except to point out that in the long run and speaking of the principles involved, that turns out to be false 100% of the time.
We look at things differently, but I don’t know if the outcome is all that different. You mentioned: “all those innocent civilians being shot into mass graves–or tortured or gassed or on and on and on–that’s pretty much how they figured too”, and you’re correct to a large degree, except 97 taxes is much different than being shot.
Also, you said: “in the long run and speaking of the principles involved, that turns out to be false 100% of the time” and if you’re referring to “going along to get along” for individuals turns out to be false, I disagree with this. Using my two grandfathers as examples, they could be said to have went along to get along, worked their careers, supported their families, paid their taxes, and have since passed away. For both of them, it was 100% true.
Now if you’re talking about — and I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just theorizing — that we’re all feeding into this system that’s going to fail, and we can all be looked at as partial contributors to the failure, that could in a sense be true. Unfortunately, I am (and I’m assuming you are as well) of the belief that an eternal utopia is beyond the grasp of humanity. I don’t disagree that our system could be improved upon, but it could also be much, MUCH worse. In other words, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That’s all I’m really saying.
You’re killin’ it BH; profound stuff. I think maybe on this topic, it always comes down to “less bad” NOT being the same as “good.” That’s not semantics…obviously with two bad choices, the less bad is better.
But that’s something different from good. I’ve been thinking about your earlier comment all day so far and it touches on some huge principles that I simply haven’t the time for presently. I’ll work on it though.
Meanwhile it’s an age-old topic, what should be the paramount goal for a rational human…survival or fourishing? There’s a case for reproduction being supreme too…nature of life and all that. I figure none of it matters too much, at least socially, because every person is going to build their hierarchy of values as they do. To me it’s THAT fact which absolutely necessitates the failure of any attempt by any person or group to do it for someone else.
To me anyway, the case for Voluntarism/Consensualism isn’t built of practical expectations, though I do have those. Nor is built even of ethical principles, though “not being a thug” is an obviously good ethical principle in a social context.
For me the case is built of that FACT, that ALL cognition, and hence volition, is individual. Period. ANY system that purports to organize humans in some fashion–ANY fashion–that denies that singular truth, is doomed to ultimate failure. That’s why they all do eventually—“You can’t fool Mother Nature.”
Well, I should probably wait for your further thoughts on this. What you said, I do agree with. “Less bad isn’t the same as good”, I agree with wholeheartedly. But while we can get into splitting hairs, the point is, if I’m not physically feeling pain, and if that isn’t on the immediate horizon, if my debts are paid, and if there’s good food on the table, I don’t have a whole lot to complain about. Some would call this “bread and circuses”, but I do NOT fall prey to this. My eyes are open. I just have a hard time figuring out what, beyond being a huge PITA for some, that I can effectively bring to the contrarian table.
Reproduction? Man, this is another area where I am lacking. I have never wanted children, and frankly, it’s hard to meet a good woman anymore. So I will not be contributing to this segment. Hopefully I can eventually meet a woman to grow old with, but if not, I’ll just continue responding to interesting posts like this for my posterity.
As for “one person or group doing it for someone else”…I think this might be the keystone to our agreement. I am SICKENED by the special interests, adjusting society and “taxation for welfare”, deciding what _I_ should be paying my hard-earned dollars to support. I’ll just say, I do MORE than my share of withholding what I can, when I can, to keep it out of the hands of the groveling masses, and in my hands, where I can do the most good with it.
In this vein, it’s so interesting, how income withholding prevents people from ever even seeing the dollars that they earn from their own toil. Then at the end of it all, they get a few bucks back, and they’re overjoyed, because they are getting a “refund”. Some people need to think about THIS for a few minutes. I won’t go into this in any great detail, but it’s worth investigating, for those who have fallen into the trap.
The further stuff will have to wait since I’m in the middle of shutting down a 35-year-old operation. Ha, I think it may be just as tough ending a business as it is starting one! From what I’m reliably told, I’m not the only one doing this now.
You present a challenge because your thinking is so clear and on any particular topic, your logic will be unassailable. That’s where the problem lies for me, and it’s a problem of hierarchy…whether putting it all together really achieves the highest goals you seek. Obviously I can’t speak for you and your values, but my guess is not. There’s a dissonance for all of us and it’s a big part of the snooker…staying alive and unchained are really good goals, taken alone. That’s why the implied fear never ends…if everyone “goes along to get along” for fear of the painful consequences, it’s mission accomplished for the looters.
That’s why I think it’s an important point that those who do go along, end up in mass graves anyway. But my tack generally is less why a person should be “against them,” than it is why the person should be “for oneself.”
And you’re spot-on about withholding…having productive businessmen be the tax collectors and do the dirty work. An interesting note there is that (I believe) Milton Friedman was the prime architect of that monstrosity, thereby demonstrating that even those with good principles end up being a part of the very bad action. Might be relevant here.
Great stuff in any event; thanks.