Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!burl!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Taxation is theft
Message-ID: <3471@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 19:38:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3471
Posted: Thu Aug 29 19:38:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 00:55:36 EDT
References: <955@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1110@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 28

In article <1751@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes:
[Replying to Rick McGeer]
>   Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property
>s theft.  Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social
>institutions. 

As near as I can figure this out, you are saying "it doesn't make sense
to say that the government is stealing because it has been doing so
for a long time".  

> The notion of property is by no means absolute. ...

Is this supposed to mean that there is no such thing as theft?

>   I do not know wheter the "taxation is theft" argument belongs to
>net.politics.invectives or net.politics.slogans, but surely not in 
>net.politics.theory.  If you want to have a minimal state, provide
>arguments,... case studies but do not call all others habitual thiefs.
>The purpose of your letter is to express your emotions.  The purpose of 
>theory is study facts, generalize and predict.

You have forgotten the statement Rick was addressing, namely that the 
recipients of government payments "owned" them.  The question of whether
it would be right to stop the payments depends critically on whether
they are theft in the first place--so this outburst is somewhat
misplaced.

--JoSH