See, this is the interesting part. I think we'll both agree that the permission part depends on me giving permission, so we won't need to discuss that. The next part is more difficult.

I have a two year old. We're weaning her off the pacifier, but occasionally, she manages to slip into her bedroom and finds a pacifier. When we ask her who gave her the pacifier, the reply is "I gave it to myself!".

The government is doing the same thing. It's the government that grants itself permission to take away my property. Putin gave himself permission to enter Ukraine.

In my first year of law school, I learned that legal scholars define something they call a "social contract", which says that in a civilized society, everyone has a contract with each other to "do the right thing". So again, I'm not debating whether or not we should pay taxes. I'm simply saying that the way things are going today, are open for improvement (to be very British).

Well, the dictionary disagrees with your:

The government is taking my property without my permission, and it gives itself the right to do so. The government partially does it secretly, and if I don't comply I will go to jail.

But you took my words out of context. I am talking about "general forms of tax". For example income tax, sales tax and all taxes that have no specific purpose. Buy an airline ticket? You pay security tax. Fine, fair and square. I choose to buy an airplane ticket and the government has to provide security, ATC etc. So I pay taxes for it. But why the F should I pay income taxes to the government can bail out "Too big to fail" crooks?

I am not opposed to paying taxes in general, I'm just opposed to that "we're taking your money and put it in our wallet, and we'll see later what we'll do with it. But trust us, it's in your interest" crap. You want my money, I want to see (and preferably have a voice as to) what you're doing with it.

General forms of taxes are legalized theft anyway. When the government just takes money away for their "general bucket", it is nothing more than stealing.

Instead, tax-per-use: road tax, school tax, environmental tax, so the tax-payer knows what happens to their money.

If governments would be more transparent, less people would have problems paying taxes.

Out of mod points when I need them the most. Mod parent up.

I have my handheld aviation radio. Tune in to 121.5 and someone is going to listen. I also have CB radio as a backup. Plus of course, said AM radio (but most people will have AM, even if they don't know it: just get into your car).

Congress funds the NSA. All you need to do is vote for representatives that will cut the funding.

While the other violated his NDAs and is now wanted for treason.

At least the NSA can be voted out of office.

I guess this hits the nail with the hammer

In the end, religion is like having a penis. It's ok to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it. But if you're going to take it out and attempt to shove it down my throat, we are going to have a bit of a problem.

The difference is that the occupants of the Oval Office were elected, and could be thrown out every 4 years. Same can't be said for the great-grandma that rules Great Britain.

In metric, one millileter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree celcius - which is exactly one percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point.

In the American system, the answer to "How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?" is "Go fuck yourself", because the American arbitrary roller-coaster makes it impossible directly relate any of those quantities.

Because the marketing droids who came up with the press release are based in the U.S., the only country next to Birma to use this arbitrary roller-coaster as an official standard.

Mod parent up.

When comparing the US with the UK, I'd choose the US within a second. At least the US isn't ruled by a great-grandma.

So in your reasoning, anyone associated with the Taxed Enough Already group, is guilty of "violently attempting to overthrow the government" because some of their affiliated politicians are attempting to protect their interpretation of the second amendment through non-violent means such as the court system and congress?

You, sir, are a genuine idiot.

And although I'm very much pro gun control, I do feel that it is people who kill people, not guns. Guns don't pull their own trigger. If you want someone dead, you can choose a lot more methods other than guns. The only reasons I'm pro gun control is that with so much weapons on the street, impulse murders are way higher than they should be, and the chances of innocent kids finding weapons and killing themselves are way too high.

You mean like this?

There is only one reason for the government to step in: make it easier for smaller ISPs to start shop. I'd love to start a small ISP in my area, but it is practically impossible.