Active shooter, Youtube HQ, San Bruno, Ca

[Rob Roy]

They should work for free?

 

[Rob Roy]

Listen, bitch.

You used the public schools, you by choice sent your kids to the public schools and now you dont want to pay to cover other people using them despite your family using them for probably more than 2 generations.

Fuck your crickets btw, it was 5am or some shit. I was sleeping because I'm not a meth'd out pedophile, like some other people...

It's good to hear you're overcoming your meth addiction. Now if we can just get you to stop hanging around the bus stop.

 

[SneekyNinja]

It's good to hear you're overcoming your meth addiction. Now if we can just get you to stop hanging around the bus stop.

Rob Roy...
Move selected: Dodge.

FAILURE TO EXECUTE!

 

[abandonconflict]

The best argument pro-property tax is that proximity to a school increases residential property value significantly. Besides, you consent to pay it when you purchase the home. I'm not arguing pro property tax, I "owned" a home briefly but when I lost equity in 2008, I got myself out from that trap. If I ever inherit, I'll sell and purchase a boat. Then I'm sure I will have to pay taxes to the US despite never bringing my boat within a hundred nautical miles of that fucking place.

 

[Rob Roy]

The best argument pro-property tax is that proximity to a school increases residential property value significantly. Besides, you consent to pay it when you purchase the home. I'm not arguing pro property tax, I "owned" a home briefly but when I lost equity in 2008, I got myself out from that trap. If I ever inherit, I'll sell and purchase a boat. Then I'm sure I will have to pay taxes to the US despite never bringing my boat within a hundred nautical miles of that fucking place.

To say a person consents to it when they purchase the home implies consent in every case, which is inaccurate. That's because the option of owning a home without consenting to a confiscatory tax isn't "allowed". The fact a confiscatory tax and home ownership is forcibly intermingled isn't proof of consent, it is proof of duress.

In other instances not involving government, a confiscatory tax would be called extortion, which is a form of theft. Changing what something is called when one party does it but then returning to calling it theft if you or I did it, is undeniably what occurs. That feature, shifting the meaning of an action to a different meaning depending on the party doing the action, is Orwellian and further proves my argument.

There is no such thing as "collateral damage", it's murder. There is no such thing as "tax", it's theft.

 

[abandonconflict]

To say a person consents to it when they purchase the home implies consent in every case, which is inaccurate. That's because the option of owning a home without consenting to a confiscatory tax isn't "allowed". The fact a confiscatory tax and home ownership is forcibly intermingled isn't proof of consent, it is proof of duress.

In other instances not involving government, a confiscatory tax would be called extortion, which is a form of theft. Changing what something is called when one party does it but then returning to calling it theft if you or I did it, is undeniably what occurs. That feature, shifting the meaning of an action to a different meaning depending on the party doing the action, is Orwellian and further proves my argument.

There is no such thing as "collateral damage", it's murder. There is no such thing as "tax", it's theft.

View attachment 4117041

To control exclusive deed to the earth, which is the common heritage of humanity and all species, is to do what governments do. It has only become privatized as a result of the forceful removal of its original inhabitants by way of genocide. Furthermore, I never consented to you owning a piece of it, at my own exclusion.

 

[Rob Roy]

To control exclusive deed to the earth, which is the common heritage of humanity and all species, is to do what governments do. It is only become privatized as a result of the forceful removal of its original inhabitants by way of genocide. Furthermore, I never consented to you owning a piece o fit, at my own exclusion.

That's a point worthy of exploration, but it doesn't refute the idea that government actions are often called one thing, but if you or I did it, they are called another.

Also, a tax is governments way of declaring that they are the real owners and you labor for them, not for yourself. That is the definition of slavery.

To say your consent is required for another physical being to maintain and occupy ("own") a piece of earth to sustain and house themselves implies that you think two physical beings can occupy or "own" the same physical space at once. That's not how nature does it.

 

[abandonconflict]

That's a point worthy of exploration, but it doesn't refute the idea that government actions are often called one thing, but if you or I did it, they are called another.

Also, a tax is governments way of declaring that they are the real owners and you labor for them, not for yourself. That is the definition of slavery.

To say your consent is required for another physical being to maintain and occupy ("own") a piece of earth to sustain and house themselves implies that you think two physical beings can occupy or "own" the same physical space at once. That's not how nature does it.

A community can occupy land.

I am not obligated to refute your opinion. These words all have meanings and as I see it, your entire argument hinges upon the way you define the words used. You did consent legally to the taxes you are required by the gov't to pay. If you did not want to, you could refrain from holding legal exclusive deed to real estate property. We can exchange opinions and amicably disagree, but we both agree that the legal definition has precedent due to the force behind it. It is my opinion that you comply with and are accomplice to that force, since you hold exclusive deed to real estate property. I am aware of your opinion. It doesn't really matter if we disagree with legal definitions. You can have the last word.

 

[Rob Roy]

A community can occupy land.

I am not obligated to refute your opinion. These words all have meanings and as I see it, your entire argument hinges upon the way you define the words used. You did consent legally to the taxes you are required by the gov't to pay. If you did not want to, you could refrain from holding legal exclusive deed to real estate property. We can exchange opinions and amicably disagree, but we both agree that the legal definition has precedent due to the force behind it. It is my opinion that you comply with and are accomplice to that force, since you hold exclusive deed to real estate property. I am aware of your opinion. It doesn't really matter if we disagree with legal definitions. You can have the last word.

Yes, a community or an individual could occupy land, and pass their improvements on to their children.

When a person or a community occupies land, and it is original occupation on previously unoccupied land it creates a form of ownership which gives THAT group or person exclusive use of THAT piece of land, to the exclusion of other individuals or groups. So in that sense even in the absence of any legal paperwork, that community or person has made a claim of ownership over a given piece of land.

If a non occupant / non owner attempted to get the group to pay them for the privilege of existing, the group or person would have every right to ignore the demand from the parasite.

 

[chiqifella]