We have a pretty large population, so if what you are saying is true, you should be able to come up with some examples of people being executed for refusing to pay taxes.

Right. Then we get to roof roads, and the cycle starts all over again

We're innocent if we choose that system? That makes no sense does it?

Surely, we would be innocent victims if you prevented us from choosing that system. I'm sure you say you wouldn't do that but given how much people like government, that makes AC effectively impossible unless a no government rule is enforced.

There has to be a balance. It is not an even playing field for everyone and taxes are what equalize. The problem is when those funds get allocated inefficiently because of bad politics.

Most of us would spend the remainder of our lives in legal troubles if we did not pay the taxes we owe. It might not be the execution you're after, but the state gets what it demands.

While I did not read that book, I took the time to read some of his essays on the same thing.

He does address my criticism of such an idea, that he seems to merely re-brand the state. He does this by stating (my interpretation) that it is the monopoly of force he wants to avoid. He suggests arbitration as an alternative to the courts and proposes that people would welcome police forces even if the state does not exist.

But I honestly don't think that response is very good. I'll be generous and ignore oversight as an issue (to be honest, these days it doesn't seem like it is all it is cranked up to be anyway). But still, if the police operates without without monopoly, then you can end up with competing police forces under different contracts. That's problematic and could lead to the same issues that arise if two states share a geographical region but does not recognize each-other.

And for arbitration, you'd still have to agree to arbitration. How do you arbitrate if one party does not consent? Do you force them to the arbitration? How?

Ethics of liberty addresses this issue, and provides a much more satisfactory solution than the present day status quo. After all, what happens today if police abuse their authority and kill an innocent person? Absolutely nothing. Police, under the present system, enjoy selective immunity, so long as they are working under the capacity of a law enforcement officer. The Rothbardian system's solultion to oversight is simple. If a policeman, or an individual acting in a police capacity (as individuals are allowed to do under the Rothbardian system) does something which would otherwise be considered a crime, they are subject to the legal penalties for such. So if a policeman kills an innocent person, they would simply be charged with murder. By holding police to the same standards of liability as ordinary citizens you have a powerful check against police abuses which is not present in our modern system.
But is this a bug, or a feature? If police force A is corrupt, abusive, and/or lazy, and police force B is judicuous, respectful, and active, then people can choose to fund police force B and withdraw their financial support for police force A. Competition in the market place helps us get ever more powerful computer processors and more efficient cars, why not allow the market place to ensure that we have better and more respectful police forces?
All of these questions are addressed in Ethics of Liberty. Essentially, the Rothbardian system sees the merging of "civil" and "criminal" law. One does not need a criminal's consent to bring them to justice. Take the case of a rapist. They can be captured, arrested, tried and if found guilty punished. But the check on police abuse is still present, so if someone is thought to be a rapist is arrested, but it turns out they are innocent, then the capturer is guilty of kidnapping and false imprisonment.

So are you saying that if a robber demands that I hand over my wallet or be stabbed with a knife, then everything is fine so long as he does not actually stab me? What difference does it make if the threat is carried out or not? Surely you do not dispute that the police and the court system reserve the right to kill people who resist arrest with sufficient force? Or that failure to pay taxes is and/or can be an arrestable offense?

So is going on or using some one else's property without their permission.

So in a system of arbitration, what happens to someone who refuses to abide by a binding decision?

Keep on licking those boots. You are being a good soldier for Daddy Government.

Ok, I will check out and read the book. It was a free download on mises.org, which was a nice touch.

I doubt it will make me a full blown libertarian, but I'll at least get more informed on these arguments.

Except as has been pointed out numerous times that isn't what happens. The government will NOT lock you in a cage or kill you for not paying taxes.

The entire notion is a construct of the AC crowd. It.is.simply.not.true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown

It depends on the specifics, but as I stated earlier, a criminal's consent is not required to bring them to justice (and under a libertarian legal system, there is ONLY criminal law).

Maybe the USA government never has but in the UK we've locked people up for refusing to pay taxes. Hasn't killed anyone for it afaik.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...legal-13018642

Again no. Failure to pay taxes is a civil matter. There is no jail time.

The crime is deliberately evading taxes or lying to effect same, and thus committing a form of fraud in the process.

You are contradicting yourself. I mean, call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. And, if the police come to arrest you to throw you in jail, and you defend yourself, they kill you.

.

Suggest you read this article more closely.

Uh no it's not 'call it whatever you want', it's the thing you are talking about is not accurate.

No, you are wrong, and presumably disingenuous, because your position is not one that a rational person can hold. How is "failure to pay" and "evading taxes" anything but six of one and a half dozen of another?

" According to a New Hampshire newspaper, the Browns had not paid some state taxes, and "face a state tax lien for business profit taxes" of $343,000."

They didn't pay their taxes, the government came with guns to lock them up. Pretty simple, even an eight year old could follow that.

No, they committed fraud, lied about their income, hid money, and furthermore conspired with each other and third parties to do both. Eight year olds may not know the difference between civil and criminal law, but you should.

At the end of the day there is no debtor's prison. If you don't violate the criminal statutes pertaining to keeping records and reporting your income you won't be arrested. If you file returns properly and report all your income and at that point won't or can't pay the accurate amount of taxes assessed it becomes at that point something that goes to civil courts. You may lose all your money and assets, but you won't go to jail.