I am so upset right now

So it looks like my local taxes are going to eat the majority of my Federal refund. I’m at close to a march-on-town-hall level of rage right now.

I cannot understand the mindset of people who believe that because they have a certain title, they can casually reach into the pocketbooks of others and take as much as they want, for whatever purposes they see fit, and not be called theives. Just because everyone does something doesn’t make it right. Taking money by force for the sin of earning a fair wage is theft, pure and simple. You can call it taxes, you can call it “redistributive justice”; but it is nothing more than dressed up highway robbery. The men and women who pass laws to enforce it are criminals, and should be treated as such. There is no excuse for taking property by force. Sometimes I think the only thing holding me back from asserting my right to my own property using deadly force is the fact I have a family to take care of, and the voice of reason in my head that says I should pick my battles…

View All


  1. I feel you brother, my taxes just went up from 2.45% to a whopping 3.2% just for my f’n county #$&(*# I’ll pour a 40 on the curb for ya.

  2. I understand completely. As a waitress, I am supposed to claim 100% of my tips. Everyone else claims about 10%. Well, I’m honest, so I claim it all, and I get a paycheck that says VOID VOID VOID across it because they only pay waitresses $2.38/hr – NOT enough to take taxes out of 100% of the tips, but it IS enough to take taxes out if people only claim a fraction of it. Basically, the whole system is based on dishonesty. And I get penalized for being honest.

    But that won’t stop me from keeping my integrity.

    By the way, I love how you use that picture of Zorak every time you get angry. 🙂

  3. Yeah, it is so cool to see Avdi posting a green insectoid (him being an Aphid and all)

    Anyways,…Ms. rebekahrae you’ve impressed me. I think I am going to have to add you too my friends list and observe you for a while for more impressive character traits!

    – theSaj

  4. I’m sure I’ll discover as I read further, but what is your view on taxes?

    1. Not suprisingly for a flaming libertarian, I consider them not only a bad idea but immoral. So debates about it with me usually hit a dead-end early-on, because I refuse to accept pragmatic arguments in support of something I consider genuinely evil.

      Although different taxes draw my ire in different amounts. I am much happier, for example, to pay a toll to use a road than to pay a tax whether I use the road or not. Although I guess that’s not really a tax at all.

      I find just about any other tax less morally repugnant than income tax. To tax a person for making money – and to tax them more for making more money – is heinous to me. At least with a sales tax one is at least theoretically paying for a service – i.e. for all the institutions that make the sales transaction possible.

      In answer to the inevitable question: I am in favor of government raising money through bake-sales.

      1. No, no sarcasm intended.

        Well, I’m a bit more to the left economically speaking. In fact, Jamie is fond of calling me a comunist in the midst of non-political discussions. I am not a comunist, but I do lean a bit more toward socialistic tendencies.

        It is not possible to change either of our perspectives, though I do strive for a better understanding of perspectives other then my own. I do this through dialogue and debate, though I have noted your reluctance to engage in political debate. Still, I’m curious. I’m not sure I’ve ever met a flaming libretarian before.

        Could the justification for income-tax be made by supposing that the more income you make the more you have benifited from government expenditures and thus the more you should be held responsible for?

        1. Jamie is fond of calling me a comunist in the midst of non-political discussions

          Well, if you’ll answer to commie, I’ll answer to capitalist pig 😉

          I’m not sure I’ve ever met a flaming libretarian before.

          I dunno, I get the impression Jamie’s pretty hardcore, although she rarely comes out and says “this is how things ought to be”.

          Could the justification for income-tax be made by supposing that the more income you make the more you have benifited from government expenditures and thus the more you should be held responsible for?

          It’s an interesting point. Setting aside my moral objections, one remianing objection stands out: I don’t think it’s true that there’s a direct relationship between income and benefit from government. I think the biggest beneficieries of government largesse are the very poor (as such is defined in the US, anyway) and the very rich, who have the connections to get all kinds of extra bonuses out of the government. For people like me, in the middle class, I don’t get $3000 more in government services if I make $10,000 more in salary. Of course, one could argue that it’s the government’s protection which makes that income possible at all; but that would be boiling the government down to a protection racket, which I don’t think is the point of your argument.

          1. Jamie is hard core. Perhaps I’ve just never given proper respect to that aspect of her?

            You know, I never liked capitalist pig. Never made much sense to me. Especially since, when boiled down to the root philosphy, it is just as viable as communism. Both, however, fail when utilized by people and the human instincts that drive them.

            I’m not sure that the poor do benifit as much. The ranks of the military are made up of many, many of the poor who sought it out as a ticket to the lower-middle class. As a result, the majority of military casulties are being borne by the poor. The argument could be made that the financial help the government offers does not equally compensate for the loss of family members. We could also take it in another direction and say, with relative confidence, that the middle class enjoys the cheaper state-run, tax funded colleges while the poor do not. Yes, there is money out there to help the poor into college, but a) college is still an expensive venture and b)the life of someone who is poor is not typically conducive to achieving academically and thus being eligable to go to school. Among many of the poor, there just isn’t a core belief that education makes use better, and so college is rarely a realized dream.

            You might want to get an apron, I think my heart is starting to bleed. 😉

          2. I sometimes refer to myself as a “bleeding-heart libertarian”, so you’re in good company. Libertarianism has suffered, I think, from being too much influenced and represented by the macho Randroid wing of the movement. You know, the “fuck the poor, they aren’t my problem” types. I was just thinking yesterday that I ought to write a book entitled “The Compassionate Individual”, because nobody else seems to have written it. The gist of it would be how the disadvantaged can be aided and lefted up to a higher standard of living, without compromising the values of individualism, liberty, and property rights. Not that I have all the answers on that topic; but it seems like SOMEONE needs to do the research and come up with the answers, because that section of the libertarian bookshelf is notably empty.

            …sorry, I got a little off-topic. It’s something that’s been on my mind a lot.

    2. It just occurred to me that your comment may have been sarcasm. If so, consider this reply an “oops”.

Comments are closed.