Re:Coinbase and the IRS
by icebraining on Sunday January 15, 2017 @03:52PM
(#13406330)
That's not a rebuttal against the argument. If you have a chicken and call it a bull, and I say "that's not a bull, those have horns, tails, etc", saying "well, try getting eggs from that" doesn't prove that chickens are actually bulls.
I'm claiming that a unanimous consent ideal is utterly unworkable at the scale that even a city government needs to work at, let alone state or federal government.
If the argument against a mostly functional existing government is that "not everyone consented unanimously and willingly", I think the claim that to require such makes things less functional is an in-bounds claim. You can argue that I'm wrong, but you will have a hard time convincing me that my claim was non-responsive.
Not all things need consent. You don't need the consent of someone violating other people's rights to punish them. You don't need the consent of 100% of the citizenry to make a decision on how to expend public funds. You do need someone's consent to take private income from them. Income taxation is wrong for that reason.
"I didn't agree to that parking fine; I park where I damn well please."
"I didn't agree to not put rat poison on the food I sold."
"I didn't agree that John and Jane Doe owned that house."
"I didn't agree that we have a medical licensing board to determine qualifications for doctors/surgeons."
"I initially agreed to pay for that, but I now revoke my consent and don't wish to be bound by that earlier consent. I did not agree to recognize your courts as valid and able to enforce that civil agreement."