Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: gunpoint - (nf)
Message-ID: <1726@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 03:36:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.1726
Posted: Sun Oct 14 03:36:52 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Oct-84 03:54:33 EDT
Lines: 113

#R:gloria:-54200:inmet:7800143:000:5109
inmet!nrh    Oct 11 20:00:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 11:15 pm  Oct  9, 1984
>> Not everything the government does is extortion.  Some of its 
>> activities are quite beneficent.  The problem is that those
>> activities, unless funded entirely by fees, are paid for by 
>> money taken by force.  
>
>So? That's not extortion, because the government does it, and the majority
>of people in the US support this form of tax collection. The difference
>between "extortion" and "legitimate use of force" is whether it's done
>by private individuals or by a democratically elected government.

We need a rule on this net: no correction of diction without reference
to a dictionary.  That said:
	ex-tor-tion ... 1: the act or practice of extorting esp. money or
	other property; specif: the offense committed by an official who
	practices extortion.

	ex-tort ... 1 a (1) : to obtain from an unwilling or reluctant
	person by physical force, intimidation, or the abuse of legal
	or official authority: get by compelling: FORCE, EXACT
	 
			- Webster's Third New International Dictionary

Satisfied, Wayne?  No reference here to illegality, for the term
"extortion" doesn't depend on it.  We went through this once before
with the term "theft" as in "Taxation is Theft", and the same holds
true for that word.

>> Fine.  Libertarians would (in general) be the last to insist
>> that anybody give them something they had not paid for.  
>
>Show me a libertarian who would prevent the fire department from putting
>out a fire in his house because he did't pay taxes (and was too lazy
>to subscribe to a private fire department).

Read my statement one more time, (louder, please) LIBERTARIANS WOULD
(IN GENERAL) BE THE LAST TO ****INSIST**** THAT ANYBODY GIVE THEM
SOMETHING THEY HAD NOT PAID FOR.

Get it?  I surely would not stop anybody from putting out my burning 
house, (depending on their methods) but I don't feel I've the right
to INSIST on it unless I've paid for it.

>> Jim Lewis, the Libertarian candidate for
>> US Vice President, has not paid federal income tax for 3 years
>> (this was his answer to a NY talk show host's question about what
>> impact his philosophy has had on his own life.  HE DOES IT FOR
>> MORAL AND LEGAL REASONS, NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS A FREE RIDE.
>
>Convenient, isn't it?

Cheap shot, and untrue.  He went through a great deal 
(threats to him and to his mother that he'd go to jail,
mandatory court appearances and interviews)
because of his decision, and for what?  Sure, he's glad he keeps
the money, but I suspect his life would have been considerably simpler
without it.  He's convinced of his (and your) right to not pay taxes, and
stood on his convictions.  I don't hear of you taking any risks, such
as publicizing civil disobedience, so perhaps you should consider
whether you'd have the guts to do it if the government did something
YOU didn't like.  If not, how "convenient" was Lewis' action?

>
>> Leaving roads and defense aside, what does the federal government do
>> with your taxes?  Of course, you pay for these even if you don't "use"
>> them:
>> 
>> 	Dairy farm price supports, Tobacco price supports (and
>> 	ongoing cancer/cigarette research), covert aid to
>		(and so on)
>
>I never said that that I like what is being done with tax revenues. I think
>that a lot of the things you mention should be eliminated. But the best
>(and only) way to get rid of these things is by legitimate means, not
>by refusing to pay taxes and refusing to recognize the government's
>authority.

The *ONLY* way?  Holy revisionism! Quick -- no American Revolution in
1776 -- we'd best re-write those history books.  Seriously: what do you
consider legitimate?  Was "bracket-creep" a legitimate way to RAISE
taxes?  If not, why not?  If it was not legitimate, should one pay those
taxes ANYHOW?  Why?


>> worthwhile the cause is that you're championing (government action)
>> doesn't strike me as all that responsible.  
>
>I'm championing the government's basic right to tax people, not the 
>things that they are using tax money for now.

And I say to you: do not think that you can build a government such
that taxes are not abused.  Badly.  Do not bother to defend taxation
on the theory that it MIGHT someday be used for something good.  
Remember -- you're advocating extortion to support the government -- 
oughtn't you to have a VERY GOOD CAUSE for doing so? 

>> Don't you understand?  I don't want to tax you to accomplish my goals.
>> I'd willingly forgo public roads, public libraries, and the rest, were
>> they not implemented in such a way as to destroy any private alternatives.
>
>Then do something about it -- vote for people who will implement things
>like that properly. (Or run for office yourself.)

Indeed I will.  I have (voted that way, not run for office).  There's
no state income tax in Alaska because people did just that (Thank you
Dick Randolph).  Wouldn't you call participating in this discussion
a good way of drawing the attention of voters to my cause?  

					- Nat Howard