From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 18:13:36 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

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.
>
>Now you come and tell me that I have to pay taxes so you and your weak
>neighbours can pay for police and courts and things that I think are
>unnecessary.  As far as I can see, that's as much theft as it is if they
>come and tell me that I need to pay taxes so that some incompetents can
>be given welfare.
>
>[...]
>Why is forcing me to pay for welfare any more theft than forcing me to
>pay for police?  I will cheerfully waive my "rights" to welfare and
>police protection, so why can't I get out of paying for them?

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>the simple answer is: in *theory* i would support your right to opt out of
>any system where you wanted to take your chances without paying for
>the service, as long is it did not violate my right to life or freedom.
>BUT, you would then be responsible for *all* consequences.
>theoretically, i would have no problem with you opting out of 
>police services, but what would happen if someone broke into your house?
>would i then be within my rights to say "tough do-dos, he didn't
>pay up?" if so, then by all means opt out. but don't call up and 
>say "help". even the CAA doesn't come unless you pay *first* :^)
>
A fat lot of good your *theory* does me when your *government* keeps
coming after me for more money for weaklings.  I already said I don't
need you or your police to protect me, so you needn't worry about me
calling them.

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.

>the double standard is what i have a problem with. 
[story of people getting bailed out by gov'ment deleted]

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'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.

Think of it, an entire country run without any government theft.
>
>even given this, there are some cases where individual opting out
>would be impossible because doing so would threaten the rights of
>others. the military is one case; how can the army defend my house
>but not yours, which is next door to it? same with the fire department.

Fire protection is easily provided by the free market system.  You
simply enroll in one of the Fire Protection companies that operate
in your area.  If your house catches fire, they'll come and put it
out.  If you pay for deluxe service, they'll come when your neighbour's
place catches fire and keep it from spreading to your place.  For
people who don't want to get fire protection, there'll be freelancers
around most places -- people who'll bring the trucks to your fire and
dicker with you over the price to put it out.

No theft there.

Police services can be done similarly.  The difference being that you
would go to the freelancers (private investigators) instead of them
coming to you.

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.

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).  

Of course, some people would rely on their neighbours' protection 
to protect themselves; but then, under your welfare system, some 
people would rely on their neighbours' charity to keep the poor 
people from rioting.  All in all, my system for protecting people
is no worse than yours for feeding people, and my system has the
added benefit that no one has to give any money for _any_ service
they don't want.

So why am I still paying taxes?  Why do you continue to endorse
theft?

...mark young