From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:09:41 GMT

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.

>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 think that there is a fundamental difference. They still believe in
law and order. Whereas you defend property and liberty. (superior concepts).
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.
If the police and the army were based on conceptual relationships, 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. 

>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. 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.
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.

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

>Military is a bit more complicated, but can still be done.  I can 
>afford to arm myself and some retainers enough to protect me from
>small threats.  For larger threats I can band together with people 
>across the country to buy more expensive equipment that will be
>available to members of the corporation as required.

Maybe we should revert to the original idea of the "right to arms" provision
in the US constitution. The original intent was to provide a "citizens" army
- as opposed to the unwholesome military complex that exists today. Gun
control - another way to scare people off from defending their property
and liberty. Another way to enforce the police monopoly. What you are
proposing regarding armies is what kings used to do. They would HIRE out
people to defend their realm. Except in the ideal consentual system - everybody
is a king and can "band together" in the defence of what is theirs.

>Our companies can then offer protection to individuals.  If a
>foreign army enters your area, we'll come and get you out and pay
>to set you back up again when the fighting's over (not great, but
>better than death).  If 40% or more of your community signs up to
>our protection plan, you get community rates.  We'll come out and
>protect your whole community from the foreign invaders (tho' only
>members get recompense for damages).  

Sounds fair to me.

>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". 

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.

>...mark young

-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**