Dean Clifford's case

 "Nobody is obligated to file or pay income taxes" 

This is a clip from CTV News, Winnipeg, Canada. 

Leaving a side the usual fear-mongering/ridiculing tactics of mainstream media, the arguments given by Clifford are not rebutted once. The reporter rightly asks: "how is it possible that Dean hasn't filed an income tax statement in nearly 17 years? He drives a car without a license, owns a home with no credit... [...] And we wanted to know how Clifford is able to avoid paying income taxes for 17 years but our calls were not answered or not returned from Revenue Canada." 

Surely, if the government was trying to avoid people from joining this 'terrorist movement', the first thing the agents of government would do is break down the arguments and educate people on why those arguments are incorrect. Even when asked by a reporter on a tv channel that has a considerable high audience reach, there was no answer, just appeal to authoritative arguments such as the ones given by Justice Minister Andrew Swan: "if you break the law you'll face the applicable consequences".

1. According to this argument, if Dean Clifford has broken the law, he should face the applicable consequences. It follows that, if he is not in jail nor has been somehow obligated to pay income taxes (while retaining his construction business, house and everything else), either he is right and paying taxes is not mandatory - to which he is not breaking any laws and therefore there is no possible application of any laws-; or he is not facing consequences because they are not enforcing 'the law' on him. 

2. The minister's statement does not address in any way the arguments made by Clifford. Law, where applicable, has consequences. This is just stating something that is obvious and Clifford himself is not denying. Clifford's argument seems to be that, this law (income tax) and many others, are not applicable to living beings who understand themselves to be free. In order to dismiss his argument in a reasonable way, the reply expected would be something along the lines: enforcing income tax on free men is not only possible but it is mandatory, not filing income tax statements as a free man has applicable consequences.  

But this would nor could ever be asserted by authorities because it is not true. It is a contradiction to state that a free man can be compelled and coerced (threatened to be jailed) into giving part of his earnings. 

Article 4 protects your right not to be held in slavery or servitude, or made to do forced labour

The Human Rights Commission describes "forced labour' as "meaning [that] you are forced to do work that you have not agreed to, under the threat of punishment."

How much would the percentage be for it to cease being slavery or servitude? Is there an actual percentage that is not zero which meets the criteria? Or is Clifford right with his argument, if you are free you should not be forced to work for someone else 'under the threat of punishment'?

It is very simple; a little bit of slavery continues to be slavery. A different thing would be to give to your community on a voluntary basis. But that would have two essential components of what is required in order for it to cease being slavery: free-will (choice) and consent.

However, what Clifford is arguing is a lot more profound than the affirmation that "taxation is slavery" because he is claiming that it is already the case that filing is a voluntary action that nobody is obligated to carry out. So, taxation is not slavery because it is voluntary. According to Clifford, we freely give our consent (by filing) and we are (at least in a deceptive theoretical manner) volunteering to give part of our income to fund the government (and whatever those in power decide that needs to be funded). 

It certainly does not feel neither voluntary nor emanating from a freely given informed consent and the approach taken by the reporters, who look at the matter in awe as if they are more confused than they were before meeting Dean, proves that the general perception of income tax is not that it is given on a voluntary basis.

And if we knew how to make it voluntary by erasing the threat of punishment from it, would we all still pay it? Would not many of us decide to fund whatever services we really think that are helping make our lives and the lives of others better? Would we help fund wars? These are essential questions to ask, would war and many other destructive actions taken by governments be able to be carried out if they weren't funded by the masses who claim not to want them in the first place?