Anarchast Ep. 263 Steve Moloney: Faking Your Own Death To Avoid Taxes!

Jeff interviews author, activist and hardcore tax avoider Steve Moloney, topics include: taxation is theft, faking your own death to avoid taxation, overbearing regulations, the free man on the land movement, Dean Clifford, growing government awareness and action against freedom lovers, the process of creating an identity, government as an illusion, created by psychotic mass belief, native Canadian secession movements and unceded territories, the destructive power of welfare and the imposition of government regulation on traditional societies, Steve's upcoming Freedom Walk.

Steve on Facebook:

The Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve:

The Anarchapulco Conference:

Anarchast on Facebook:

The Dollar Vigilante:


Enjoy our content and would like to see us get more amazing guests and spread the word of freedom? A donation to this BTC address will give us more resources to do so: 16AJs5DFEcfCuXkwmx1o54Ld4yXzPP1gVR

25 Comments on Anarchast Ep. 263 Steve Moloney: Faking Your Own Death To Avoid Taxes!

  1. Sorry meant to read “dean Clifford has been sentenced to 22months in prison. The price of standing up to tyranny

    • +Sgt. Prepper A lot of statists seem to think that because he was sent to prison, he is wrong, and the government is right. Statists are absolute brainwashed morons unfortunately.

      I guess anyone getting assaulted is bad, any one who is raped is to blame, anyone who is murdered is to blame, etc. according to the statist logic.

    • +informationwarfare That’s correct. Dean was locked up because he was right. The state will break its own laws in order to punish dissidents; it has no honour, it doesn’t care. He learned how the system worked, went up against it and lost, not because he made a mistake, but because the state makes it up as it goes along and knows no limits. I don’t even argue with statists anymore. Most of them are too intellectually dishonest to tolerate.

    • “Most of them are too intellectually dishonest to tolerate.” I hear that!+JulianBaynes1

    • +JulianBaynes1 I’ve had much the same experience with SJWs, leftists, women and governments…. they move the goalposts when convenient, and when they’ve lost. They flip the board, or reset the video game when the clock is ticking down. They are not like us, playing to win on reason and logic, and willing to concede when we’ve been proven wrong. They don’t play to win, they play to never ever lose. They are society’s sore losers.

      There is a reason governments don’t negotiate with terrorists, because one cannot move a terrorists goalposts, since those goalposts are already infinitely much wider than the government’s. A suicidal bomber simply has nothing left to lose, and in most negotiations, he who cares the least, holds all the power, and wins. Those who don’t prove they can concede, are themselves terrorists, and they have already declared an act of war upon you, by simply being a hypocrite, with a biased and asymmetric sense of justice.

  2. You need to work on your thoughts about borders. e.g. they don’t physically exist. I agree that national borders are not legitimate but not because there’s no physical line there. There’s no physical line around your property either but you wouldn’t argue that your property borders don’t exist.

    • +max bootstrap You appear to be doing gymnastics to support your position. You can’t own the wood but you can own the house is not a rational position since the house is composed of wood that, according to your definition, you can’t own. In any case whatever definition of ownership you have for wood would then also apply to land/property since its possible to “improve” property to the point where it “cannot be “taken” by anyone else without harming or destroying what you do own”. e.g. if you till the soil and plant crops you can’t separate that “improvement” from the physical land.

    • +Mooja12 : I’m sorry, but you seem to be missing or ignoring important parts of what I say, hopefully not on purpose.

      The natural processes of the environment (whether you consider them random or just natural) *cause* some *things* to exist. These *things* are coherent configurations of atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons. The process of *cause to exist* is what we mean by *create*.

      When a seed from a plant falls from that plant, the seed *might* manage to grow into another plant. But most seeds will not grow (which is why plants drop so many seeds). Nonetheless, any seed that *does* manage to grow we say “the natural processes of the environment caused that seed to grow”.

      However, what about all those seeds that would not have grown? What if a human being collects those seeds, carefully prepares an area of dirt with rocks, sticks, weeds and clutter removed, carefully puts each seed in a tiny hole with some water and nutrients, covers up the seed, then periodically sprinkles water on the ground where those seeds are? And then when the seeds grow into plants, the human keeps sprinkling water on them, and caring for them, and preventing predators from destroying them?

      Those plants *would not* have existed if the human did not take those actions. Therefore, this is a case where it was *not* “the natural processes of the environment that caused the plant to grown”, but *was* “the intentional actions and processes a human took that caused the plant to grow”.

      *Since the cause of these plants is intentional human actions, the human is the creator of these plants, and the human is thus the owner of these plants, and the plants are his property.*

      You can repeat the same example with seeds that grow into trees, and now that human is the creator of those trees.

      In this case, the human is the owner of those trees *even before he chopped them up, made them into lumber, and attached them together in the configuration of a house*.

      In the case the human just went out into the natural forest and collected trees he did not create, then he certainly owns the house (or other structure or good or goodie) he constructed with those trees.

      So there is a difference in these two cases.

      In one case, he owned the raw trees, before anything *further* was done with them yet (nothing further productive).

      In the other case, he did not own the raw trees before he reconfigured them into a home or other useful good or goodie.

      Now, if one wants to be very careful and very detailed, one can make a distinction between these two cases… *even after the house was constructed*.

      One could say that the first human owned the trees and wood that became the substance of his house… in addition to his house. Why? Because he created them both.

      One could also say that the second human did not own the trees and wood that became the substance of his house… but he owns the constructed house.

      However, what happens at this point is, we find that this distinction may be philosophically or intellectually interesting, but has no consequences.

      Why so? Because the *substance*, the *wood* in the house cannot be separated from the *house* or other *property* the human owns. *The house is a configuration of the wood*, and so to remove or destroy the wood is to steal or destroy the house… and the house was created and is thus owned by that human.

      One more observation is important. In the case where the trees were from the forest, and thus created by the natural processes of the environment, *nobody owned those trees*. You could say “nature owned those trees” but that statement is inappropriate and even silly for practical purposes, because it would render all humans (and all plants, animals and lifeforms) dead because they all depend upon consuming the material of nature to survive (and in fact are pieces of the material of nature).

      So in the case where the house was constructed from wood (from trees) that were just “found in nature” but not produced by intentional human actions, there cannot be a valid basis for any human to “grab the lumber that is your house” just because you did not create (plant and raise) the trees from which you cut the wood.

      To be technical and philosophical you could say “no human owns that lumber”. But it matters not, because the human who created the house created the configuration of wood (and other materials), and thus owns the house (even if not the wood).

      Maybe the following will make this clear. Let’s assume the human who built the house stole the trees (or lumber) from another human who created those trees [and fashioned them into lumber].

      The owner of the lumber doesn’t own the house. The owner of the house doesn’t own the lumber. The owner of the house owes the owner of the lumber compensation for the lumber he took, either some quantity of gold, silver or fiat paper (for example, if the owner of that lumber was a lumberyard and had a price tag on the lumber) or return of an equal or greater quantity and quality of similar lumber.

      But the important point is this. If you create something, which means “intentionally configure material into some useful form”, you own that configuration. And if the substance you formed was not already owned (was a consequence of natural processes), then nobody can possibly have any basis to claim it or take it (or tax it or otherwise make any claims against it). And the *reason* for that is *because they cannot take the substance without destroying what you own, which is the configuration of that substance*.

      Everything I said in all my messages is 100% coherent and 100% based upon the fundamental nature of reality, including the nature of causality (cause and effect/consequences) and the nature of human beings.

      Nothing is “stretched” or “tricky” or otherwise manipulated to arrive at a specific answer. Everything *is the way reality is*.

      However, what I say may sound different from what you’ve heard, so it might sound “different”. But that’s just because nobody before ever figured out the valid, legitimate, fully natural nature of “own” and “property”. This is somewhat amazing (given how important and long-standing these concepts are), but less so when you observe that almost all attempts to understand anything end up trying to find some “authority” that arbitrarily “dictates” what the bases of these concepts are. Though that’s where 99% of the effort of attempts to answer these questions goes, that is also an inherently failed approach, because “authority” is inherently a fiction (like so many other fictions that humans burden their thinking with).

      I hope this helps you grasp how simple this issue is. It really is… though it is always difficult to let go of all the nonsense that has accumulated in the mind over a lifetime. That’s the real obstacle for any honest thinker. On the other hand, very few humans are honest these days, or have any desire to be honest.

    • +max bootstrap I fully understand the distinction you make between harvesting a tree you planted vs harvesting a tree you didn’t plant. I understood it before your long explanation. It’s completely irrelevant to your argument since you believe how ever the trees were grown it doesn’t change your ownership of the house.  

      The logical inconsistency in your argument is that you claim to be able to to construct something you own from something you don’t own. If you don’t own the pieces then you don’t own the whole. I don’t care how much work you put into it.

    • +Mooja12 : The is just about the most insane and absurd conclusion that I have ever heard.

      The substance of reality (the fundamental field that electrons, protons, neutrons, photons are certain configurations of) is eternal. No more is created and none is destroyed… even as certain configurations are formed and later cease to exist).

      Therefore, no human and in fact not even [the processes of] nature can literally create the fundamental stuff of reality.

      Therefore, no human (or anyone, or anything) can or ever could own the fundamental stuff of reality, because nobody can create that fundamental stuff (substance). Normally this means “the atoms”, but since matter can reconfigure to be energy and vice-versa, this statement is almost literal in practice, but not quite.

      So that’s the end of that topic.

      *It is your position that taking the substance of reality (that no human has worked with before) and then investing time, effort and resources to form that substance into a configuration that has value for human beings can be a basis of “ownership” or “property”.*

      Since all that exists in the entire universe is the “fundamental stuff”, “configurations of the fundamental stuff” (some of which are humans), and “actions taken by those configurations”… your claim is an assertion that “ownership” and “property” cannot exist.

      *THAT IS FALSE.*

      How can I claim that is false? Simple. I stated that *the very meaning* of the terms “ownership” and “property” are… humans taking intentional actions that create new configurations that have value to humans.

      Since humans can and do “take intentional actions that create new configurations that have value to humans”, then by the very meaning of the terms “ownership” and “property”, I am correct and you are wrong. Note that there is no “authority” involved in the meanings I stated for “ownership” and “property”. They are in fact “causality (cause and effect/consequences) applied to human actions”. No reference to “authority”. No reference to “law”. No reference to anything else but the fundamental nature of reality, human beings, and human actions. PERIOD.

      Thus, my meanings cannot be wrong (which is precisely why those meanings are the correct meanings and not subject to arbitrary objections based on the usual bogus bases).

      And so what? This means you can say the following. “Well, so what if you stated some aspects of reality, and mean those aspects of reality by certain terms like *ownership* and *property*. That doesn’t make those meanings of any significance to me, and indeed I choose to assert they are irrelevant. And since they are irrelevant, I intend to break into your garage tonight, steal your cars, your machine shop equipment, the gold and silver bullion you hid under the concrete of your garage floor, and everything else that suits my fancy”.

      Yes, you can do that. And you can claim to me that your actions to “reconfigure the location of those objects” is no less (or more) valid or legit (or whatever absurd position you choose to take) as the actions I took to reconfigure raw materials into those objects.

      And that would either make you a human predator. Notice I did not say “criminal”, because what is “criminal” is simply a fictional definition in the fiction called “law” (which is formulated by humans pretending to be yet another fiction called “government”).

      Quite possibly you’d look for a rationalization for your actions. Perhaps you’d say, “each according to his abilities (me creating those goods), and each according to his needs (you confiscating those goods). That changes nothing about what happened. A creator/producer creates, a predator consumes/destroys. I was the creator/producer and you were the consumer/destroyer.

      What I describe above cannot be refuted, because everything I described is an utterly, totally, completely, irrefutably fundamental characteristic of reality (material stuff, humans, reconfiguration of material stuff). Any argument that attempts to deny this is an attempt to deny aspects of reality that are so utterly, totally, completely fundamental and pervasive (apply to everything in the universe), which exposes the argument as abject insane nonsense.

      Thus *AT BEST* your argument is reduced to the claim that “I choose to consider or distinguish *who* is a creator/producer or *who* is a destroyer/consumer of an object to be of any significance… and therefore I will steal and destroy whatever I wish, whenever I wish”.

      My answer is… “yes indeed you can”. And the evidence for that is everywhere today, as more and more humans behave as destroyers/predators, and fewer and fewer humans behave as creators/producers.

      The consequences of this are grave (if you care at all about human life, or pain and suffering, or advancement, or improvement of the human condition). Why so? Because the natural processes of the environment cause enough goods (food, shelter, etc) to support about 0.1% of the human population.

      Which means, if all humans return to the modus-operandi of “predators” as you advocate, then 99.9% of the human population will *necessarily* perish. More likely all human life will be erased given the technological tools the worst human predators (the *predators-that-be*) have available to them currently.

      But… your position is coherent and consistent. If you prefer that state of existence, then everything I said (including the fact of “ownership” and “property”) is indeed of no significance to you as a die-hard predator.

      *The FACT of “ownership” and “property” that I describe still exists, but has no impact upon your behavior.*

      *However, the FACT of “ownership” and “property” will have an impact upon my behavior.* Specifically, I will treat you on the basis of (and consistent with) your rejection of the significance of “ownership” and “property”… meaning, *I WILL KILL YOU* if I get the chance and I judge the risk to myself as tolerable (my choice).

      In other words, I will treat human predators exactly the same as I treat predators of any species. If a predator is inconvenient to me, I will exterminate that predator (whenever the risk is tolerable).

      This is precisely the way predators treat *everything*.

      The difference between a predator/destroyer and producer/creator is this. As a creator/producer I will not treat other creator/producers as if they are destroyers/predators. I will in fact do the opposite… help them, trade with them, collaborate with them, etc. Or if I choose, just not interact with them. A creator/producer has no reason to harm or destroy another creator/producer, and every reason to not harm or destroy them. They are *zero* threat to me or my property, but can sometimes be a great benefit (synergy).

      And that is the bottom line. You are indeed free to assign zero significance to “ownership” and “property”. But do understand that one of us creators/producers may well kill you dead once we realize you are a destroyer/predator. We have every reason and incentive to kill you, and zero to let you survive.

      *We (creators/producers) do not depend on you.*

      *You (destroyers/predators) greatly depend on us.*

      This is a huge lesson that 99.999% of human producers have not realized yet… at least not clearly or fully enough. As I stated before, the natural processes of the earth environment produce about 0.1% (1 out of 1000) as much goods as necessary to support the current population of earth. Therefore, at least 99.9% of the human population *DEPENDS* on human producers for their survival… while all human predators do for human producers is make their lives much more difficult and dangerous. We do not depend on you… just the opposite.

      I believe the above is fairly complete.

      It seems fairly certain you don’t care and advocate the life and modus-operandi of a predator. Nonetheless, I hope the above further clarifies any niche aspects about this topic for any others who read these messages.

    • +max bootstrap You’re producing theories based on your feelings about how you’d like things to be. You fail to recognize the simple logical inconsistencies in your theories even when they are explicitly pointed out to you. I urge you to consider basic principals of validity. There are many logic primers available on the internet to further your education. Best regards.

  3. Thanks Jeff and Steve – I understand what you’re saying and I think a lot of other people do too. Good Luck Steve with your walk across Canada – it must be about 2000 miles! A neighbor of mine walked from my village in Switzerland to St. Iago de Compostella in Spain, it took him 4 months, which is about the same distance. And he was 65 years old! “May the wind be at your back, and the Sun shine on your face!” – An American expatriate listener in Switzerland – Edward Huitt

  4. “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” -Colossians 3:3

    God had this concept long ago…

    Acknowledge that you are a hell-deserving sinner and accept Christ as your Saviour, who shed his precious blood for the wickedness of this world.

  5. As I understand, Dean Clifford was sentenced 3 years just a few days ago and hauled off to jail. I don’t think he’ll be doing any interviews on Anarchast anytime soon.

  6. Re: Borders. It’s interesting that the legal term for the boundaries of a plot of land is called an abstract. It really is an abstraction of reality.

  7. I think this is the guy I met this morning at “Mile 0” where he started his freedom walk across the country. Very cool dude. YES!!! it’s totally him, now that I’ve watched the video more, and he mentioned being from Saskatoon, I sent him off with a bunch of bananas on his walk across Canada. It was really cool because I was at Mile 0 to meet the Canada Tibet Committee for a 5K run for a free Tibet, he got in the picture with us.

  8. Gary Yourofsky, don’t forget about Gary, he’s also not allowed in Canada, same as Paul Watson, terribly unfortunate.

Comments are closed.