Taxes Should Not Exist in the United States

" (1) demand (as a verb) - to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary; to ask for with proper authority (both of these can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com......) (2) impose (again, as a verb) - to lay on or set as something to be borne, endured, obeyed, fulfilled, paid, etc.; to put or set by or as if by authority (again, both of these can be found at http://dictionary.reference.com......) Seems to me, by these definitions, I can legitimately stand by my assertion that user fees are, in fact, a form of taxation, provided I clarify the following: user fees are nonetheless "demanded" from or "imposed" upon the individual; the only difference is that they're conditional." "Just, proper, or necessary," with "Authority"-- none of these refers to a trade. "Offer something in exchange" is neither call for nor require. A trade is not "laid on or set," "put or set by or as if by authority." "Fire stuff... " Not according to the definitions. " To strengthen my argument, I wish to take note of the fact that if you consider the above example to not be a form of taxation, and you maintain that taxation cannot definitively be conditional, then logically you'd have to consider the income tax in this country (as it stands now) not to be a tax. After all, the government threatening you with a gun or jail time is still conditional. You can choose to either refuse (in which case, you get imprisonment, or, under more oppressive regimes, you get shot), or you can can choose to pay (in which case you receive the services the government provides, and you DON'T get imprisoned or shot)." This is misinterpreting my argument. Those conditions are unequivocally an imposition, you were not going to get imprisoned or shot before they went and did those. Whereas, if the government offers you a service on a given condition-- you weren't going to get the service anyway before they made the offer, thus, they are not "laying on" anything to be endured etc. " Furthermore, in order to remain consistent, someone in your position would have to consider sales tax on private industries NOT to be a form of taxation. After all, the tax is "imposed" on the citizen who purchases a product, but it's only within the context of his or her decision." Again ignoring the point of my distinction. I am not abolishing the term taxation by nature of it's being conditional-- but by nature of what sort of condtion it is. Is it a "condition" in the sense that they offer you something you didn't have before in exchange for what you have? No imposition or demand is made then, your options from beforehand are intact, you can keep them that way OR change them. Are they making it so that no matter what they'll take something you had before, as they are with sales tax, income tax, or so forth (They'll take you're money, or take your life, but they won't leave you with the option you had before them of giving up neither.) That is a demand, an imposition. They are using their authority, not your choices, as the primary issue in the matter. " I would also like you to be aware that common usage of a word does not necessarily mean that word is being used correctly, nor does it determine the definition of the word." Words exist for no other purpose than to be used in expressing ideas, and have no objective meaning. The meanings arise from usage. Deviations from common usage may be justifiable, but they must be justified-- in the absence of a good reason, the common usage should prevail as the one most understood. "Because the dictionary said so," is ad authoritatem, not a good reason. " And last but not least, the definition of "money." Money, as I've stated, is a circulating MEDIUM of exchange. This means that something has to be placed between the exchange of two products. In other words, it does not and cannot include direct trading of two products." " an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished: Words are a medium of expression. " http://dictionary.reference.com... The agency or means of two people each placing a different ordinal preference on a pair of goods and therefore exchanging them is plenty fine as a medium. " It states that Mesopotamia was the first to use "money." And Mesopotamia, of course, did have a government. " The basic point was that, even "money" in the limited sense you have, is ontologically (not necessarily chronologically) prior to government. It is conceivable for money (Not fiat money, but, say, precious metals) to be used even in the absence of government.