From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:42:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.050941.1578@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>In article <m2c=rCC@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>Mark Young wrote:
>>>Say I am a Feudalist.  I happen to believe that I am perfectly capable of
>>>protecting my property by the power of my own arm and my ability to pay
>>>people to help me.
>
>That is absolutely classic. What is the big difference between politicians
>who demand taxes or mafiosi who demand protection? One has the law on
>their side.

it's amazing how many times i have to keep repeating this clarification.
we are having a philosophical discussion. legalities are irrelevant.
we are trying to support or refute the *justifications* for the laws
we feel would be right. arguing legality is post hoc and not appropriate to the
discussion.

>>How is someone breaking into _my_ house going to endanger (let alone
>>"violate") your right to life or freedom?  It can't.  And yet you still
>>want me to pay for police and you still insist that it's not at all
>>like paying taxes for welfare.  I still don't see the distinction.
>
>I may be misjudging you, but IMHO you have eclipsed all the petty no-minds

who are...?

>who think that there is a fundamental difference. They still believe in
>law and order. Whereas you defend property and liberty. (superior concepts).

why?

>All throughout history kings and presidents have demanded our loyalty,
>our blood and our money to preserve the system. They threaten us with 
>anarchy and chaos, but forget that out of chaos comes true order.

pardon?

>If the police and the army were based on conceptual relationships

such as?

>people
>would WILLINGLY pay their money in return for a service. In essence, that
>is what private insurers do. If you want their services, you part with
>your money to pay for them. The law demands our loyalty. It is our duty
>to oppose oppression, no matter how benign. 

what does all of that mean? that's a pretty confusing set of sentences.

>>I have no double standard.  Any money anyone takes from me without my
>>consent is money stolen from me.  Whether that money be for police to
>>protect weaklings, or welfare to protect incompetents is moot.  How
>>can you separate the two?
>
>I protest the use of the word weaklings.

why?

>I think that the definition 
>should be EXPANDED to include every sucker who privately consents to
>the system that deprives them and their concitoyens of their rights.
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
what is this word?

>BTW many people go to welfare because it pays more than a real job.
>Not a defence of this system - but just some facts. It pays better.

what is your point?
sorry -- i've had these discussions many times and i just don't see
your point here.

>>I've said I'm willing to live with the consequences of my actions.
>>I won't be asking your government for any money -- besides, if my
>>plan is implemented, there won't be any government any more:  there
>>will only be private businesses providing services for their paying 
>>customers, and charities providing support out of funds collected 
>>through voluntary donations.
>
>Charity. What an unwholesome concept!

why?

>Private charity does on a smaller
>level what outrageous taxes and welfare do on a public level. But that
>is not the issue. Consent is. Something denied us by law.

but that is the only difference of importance. so why do you
have a problem with charity?

>Say, have you
>read a fantastic book called Defending the Undefendable. It is by Fraser
>Institute economist Walter Block. He defends as *HEROES* pimps, prostitutes,
>drug dealers, slanderers, corrupt cops, "scrooges" and other maligned
>people in society. He uses CLASSIC FREE MARKET economics to go beyond the
>puny world of so-called neo-conservatism and is in many ways more interesting
>than some modes of objectivist thought. Expand your mind. Defend freedom
>for scum. Read this book or recommend it. It will BLOW YOUR MIND.

haven't seen the book. but what is your problem with it?
if it is erroneous or illogical, just point that out.

>(people 
>who hate this book include tons of so-called objectivists - tells you how
>limited their thinking is)

oh yeah, really well thought out positions just *exude* from this post
of yours. i bet objectivists and thinkers of all sorts will be
just lining up around the block to let you educate them...

are you actually trying to make a point here? or just vent your spleen?

>>So why am I still paying taxes?  Why do you continue to endorse
>>theft?
>
>Because it is the "right thing to do". Because kings, presidents, prime
>ministers, prelates and civic leaders have brainwashed the whole 
>"civilized" world into thinking that collectivism is better than liberty.
>That theft is better than property. That our religion enforces us to
>be our "brother's keeper". 

so what are you saying?

>I am not my brother's keeper. I am not a slave.
>I am a free man still bound by other's chains. A free man in captivity
>by the evils of civilization. A free man because I know I am free, because
>only *I* can give myself rights - not nature or God or government. Me.
>And this is my declaration of independence. I am mightier than collectivist
>dictatorship, popular sovereignty, republicanism, democracy and imperialism.
>I am more powerful than the greatest empires. Because I am free.

is this for real? you make *me* sound like a moderate...
but then, i try to mix some *argument* with my prose.
please do so. i'd like to understand where you are coming from.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics