Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Cristóbal Palmer wrote:
> On 7/17/07, Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk> wrote:
>>> You keep repeating this assertion.
>> Yes, that's because it's true.
> 
> Then back it up. You're Saying A therefore B, but B doesn't follow from A.

> B) All tax collection in this country is done through an implied
> threat of force.

That's because your B) above is not an accurate reflection of my
position.  A better wording would be

B) all tax collection in this country is accompanied with an implied
threat of force for failure to comply.

So yes, some people would simply choose to pay anyway.  But my point is
that if any given individual were to choose to not pay, he/she would
eventually be met with coercive force.  Yes, it might go through a
sequence involving a nasty letter first, followed by a fine, etc.  And
it may be rare that someone is literally locked up for not paying
their taxes (I don't *know* that that is the case however).  But
if it happens **even once** then that validates the point that
I'm trying to make; which is that our existing state is ultimately
based on mandatory participation and coercion.  I may not be wording
this in such a way that my point is clear, and if so I apologize for not
being a better communicator.

Or to put it another way... Even thought *I* might very well choose
to pay "my taxes" even if it weren't required, I still consider it to
be wrong for that threat of force to exist, simply as a matter
of principle; where that principle is my freedom to choose.

Or go go back to my older example.. if I'm walking down the
street, with one one-hundred dollar bill in my wallet, headed
to an orphanage to donate the $100, and I'm accosted and
deprived of my $100, I'm *still* angry even if the mugger then
proceeds to the very same orphanage and donates the money.
(No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it gets to the spirit of
the matter, IMO.)

And for anybody that doesn't follow that, then I guess we just
have a fundamental difference in principles.


TTYL,


Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnQoGdkzqYMZbBuwRAmhNAJ44d60J9aGuDLAyIjIyOsA/MXy8nACgx//U
SCs94hLeLphKfeE2S7qSG8s=
=bL52
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
begin:vcard
fn:Phillip Rhodes
n:Rhodes;Phillip
adr:;;P.O. Box 16905;Chapel Hill;NC;27516;USA
email;internet:mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk
tel;home:919-928-0236
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/philliprhodes
version:2.1
end:vcard