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: Re: Taxation is theft
Message-ID: <3519@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 00:32:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3519
Posted: Wed Sep  4 00:32:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 23:25:44 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: 65

>> >[Berman]
>> >   Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property
>> >s theft.  Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social
>> >institutions. 
>> [me]
>> 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".  
>[Mike Huybensz]
>Let's rephrase it into libertarian terms. 

Please quit lying to us, Mike.  You know and I know that you have no
intention of trying to understand the libertarian view of things
in either the political or moral sense, and are merely being mendacious.
To wit:
> You are free to remain within or
>leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US.

Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which
you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract.
Mr. Huybenz might as well have said "You are free to remain within 
or leave the contract of servitude agreed to by you by your being black."
(to leave by the same means, altering the condition of your birth).

>The government has the right to enforce the contract you have both
>freely entered into and continually renewed.

Oh?  If it is a two-sided contract between partners with equal rights
in the matter, why don't *I* have the right to enforce it, or more to the 
point, to interpret the points of the contract?  The libertarian sheep's
clothing on your statist wolf is slipping, Mike:  contracts are to be
interpreted and enforced by neutral arbitrators, not the parties.

>There is enough choice of governments in this world for you to take your
>pick in a more-or-less free market.  To claim that there is no libertarian
>government for you to choose from...

>Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

... Is a claim I never made-- in fact in the very letter you're
replying to I gave a list of countries I thought had as good or better
deal in freedom as the US.  But by the time one reaches the age of
majority, he has taken on a considerable overhead in terms of the 
culture of his native land--if I moved to Japan, for example, I
would more or less have to start all over in terms of education,
of socialization, of making friends and so forth--not to mention 
leaving my family behind or the pure expense of the move.

I *dare* you to consider--just exercise your imagination, and think
of a world where changing your government were as easy as changing
your grocer.  Or not to go so far, your insurance company.  I dare you
to comprehend what the world would be like if changing governments
were as easy as you make it out to be above--if people really had a
choice, if the "social contract" were really a contract.  Imagine a 
world where Consumer Reports rated police franchises the way they do 
fast food chains.  Imagine a world where lawmakers had to make
laws people could understand, or no one would buy them;  where 
judges had to be fair, or no one would hire them; where executives
had to be competent, or no one would patronize them.

Try taking your own words at face value, Mike.  What if government
really *were* a matter of voluntary contract?  If you find it 
impossible to say what you mean, have a go at meaning what you say.

--JoSH