Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Taxation is Theft? Message-ID: <21183@lanl.ARPA> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 01:28:47 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.21183 Posted: Thu Feb 7 01:28:47 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:18:07 EST Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Distribution: net Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 63 This is an answer to several different articles at once. > The libertarian points out that taxation is theft in order to make > the point that something that is wrong for one person to do, > is wrong for a group to do. It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself. Why would it be wrong for a group to take money from itself? That's how taxes work out for a democracy anyway. > This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition. If A has a property, > then a group including A may or may not have that property. With the present laws: If A owns some property, then a group including A DOES NOT own that property :-). > [...] Robin Hood was an outlaw, remember; > the duly constituted Sheriff of Nottingham and the King (John) > wanted to kill him in the worst way. Not at all. They wanted to hang him. That's not the worst way to kill someone. > In our own society, as in mediaeval England and ancient Israel, > it is the government which is rich and the people who are poor. You haven't been reading about the deficit, have you? > Any land I might come to own will be paid for by the fruits of > my labor. I therefore find your distinction between land and > other kinds of property to be nugatory. At some point in the past someone came out to your land, pounded some stakes in the ground, and said 'this is my land'. His ownership of the land didn't come from any 'fruits of labor', he just claimed the land. The reason he could get away with this behaviour (and later sell the land, burn it, leave it to his heirs, build on it, etc.) is that the legal system and the government allowed him to. This is the same legal system that your property taxes help to support. Without it, you have no rights to you land at all (or, at least, no rights unless you can defend them with strength at arms). > Statement of belief: Manipulation of the economy via manipulation > of taxation is improper. Fine. But in what way is legitimate tax, that helps to support your right to own land, to be considered 'manipulation'. > [...] I believe that our National Parks should be in private > hands, but that would be hard to do if the homesteading laws allowed someone > to claim the grand canyon. I disagree. The basis of my disagreement is not human nature or mistrust, but direct observation: National Parks are, in general, much more fun to visit than privately held land, in general. This is assuming that the private land holder allows me on his property at all. I'm willing to part with a few tax dollars and some mineral wealth to maintain these places. Fortunately, enough others in this democracy feel the same. If you disagree, you can always vote for your view - James Watt appeared to be on your side. J. Giles