Early Americans did not "hate tax" at all....they just wanted to see some benefits to themselves devolving from it. It was more the result of the basic character of free colonists anywhere that independence was seen to be a good thing. All empires finally succumb to the desire of humans not to be merely production units for the benefit of some unseen overlord.
Taxation is antithetical to the principles put forth in the declaration of independence, of the inherent right of each individual to life and liberty. Taxation, by way of using coercion, including threat of kidnapping, imprisonment, and murder, is a direct violation of this principle of universal and inherent right to liberty. The constitution made no provision for taxation until it was altered in 1787. I take these facts as a strong hint that the revolutionary minded people of the time, who were willing to fight and die for their independence from a corrupt state were sufficiently enlightened as to reject taxation altogether, but unfortunately, the sentiment wasn't strong enough in the general populace to keep the thieves at bay for very long.
Speculation on the motives of people who are long since dead aside, as well as my deep suspicion regarding anti-state, anti-tax sentiment being edited out or softened in historical accounts, taxation is still theft as a matter of FACT and worthy of being hated by everyone who values morality. That much can not be disputed.
>All empires finally succumb to the desire of humans not to be merely
>production units for the benefit of some unseen overlord.
Empires rely upon a mass of people being duped into believing in the rightful authority of those who rule, and crumble when that delusion falls away.
You got an omelette in your brain, son.
You start out with good intentions, but fear and hate seem to get the better of you.
Stay loose, don't go joining any nazi cults.
See ya out there.
>You got an omelette in your brain, son.
As you offered no explanation for this diagnosis, or any good reasoning for why I should change the way I think, it means exactly squat. But thanks for trying.
>You start out with good intentions, but fear and hate seem to get the better of you.
I love you too. None of my assertions have been refuted, and taxation is theft.
>Stay loose, don't go joining any nazi cults.
No worries, I'm not a joiner.
How do you survive without a job?
I take jobs when it suits me, just not corporate jobs. It's all about counter-economy. At one point I learned a craft and worked for myself, doing that for many years. I never filed any forms or declared a dime of my income (20k-30k/year), and haven't done so for 30+ years. I also learned to live frugally, save my money and invest in bitcoin, so I don't feel the crack of the economic whip nearly as hard these days... I pretty much do what I like.
I beat the wage slave thing a long time ago. Now the challenge is to eliminate dependency on fiat currency.... a much more difficult thing to do.
What's wrong with Fiat?
>What's wrong with Fiat?
Because it's a global enslavement system.
Aside from the massive scam of it, and being the primary mechanism by which people are enslaved, exploited and robbed (through inflation), it gets even worse. The following is part of a page that I'm working on that explains money in more detail:
Using fiat currency is bad because by honoring it, you give it value.
Think about it... why are you willing to work and sell things for money? You can't eat it or smoke it... you do it because you believe other people (like at the store) will trade you the money for things you can eat and smoke.
Fiat currency has no value whatsoever other than because we all keep believing in it.
That would all be fine and dandy, if it weren't for the fact that the people put in charge of creating the money from nothing (for their own profit) ,lend out as much as the government needs to fund wars and other atrocities... they lend it to the government at interest, and add it onto the national debt, which gets paid back by taxpayers.
The only reason this money created for war has value is precisely because of you and I and everyone else who believe in it enough to continue working and selling our real goods and services for it. Our willingness to continue exchanging our goods and labor for fiat currency is what enables all of the atrocities of government... THAT is the real inconvenient truth.
And that is why, if we are being honest with ourselves, and taking full responsibility for our actions, we must admit the immorality of even participating in the fiat economy, and seek to boycott USD as much as possible.
For a more detailed understanding of money and the monetary system, read all of the books and watch all of the videos listed here:
Watch this and just imagine "Illumicorp" as being the inner circle of the Federal Reserve... the top of the corporate pyramid:
The likes of this organization and agenda is what you support every time you honor fiat.
>In any event, to the extent that the US revolution was a revolution against
>manipulation of financial flows, it was directed against imperial monopolies. Not banks.
If banks are not the epitome of imperial monopolies, then what is? There is much in the sentiment expressed by the American revolutionaries that is distinctly anti-bank:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies," Jefferson wrote. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around (these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson
This is far from the only example, and this anti-bank sentiment was carried by the American people well into the days of Andrew Jackson who won his election on the slogan "Jackson and no bank"... but again, that this was a chief concern of Americans during its early history is something that has mysteriously vanished from most historical accounts and is no longer generally known, or made much of by most historians who are aware of it.
>but the idea of "money manipulators" could only really exist well
>after the so-called Enlightenment when financial theory was developped
"And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables."
The term has been around in one form or another for as long as the practice of things like usury, currency debasement, and the involvement of "authority" in the production and regulation of money.