fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (02/14/85)
In article <478@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >The government does not *own* the property in question - rather it provides >the definitions and defense of what property is in the first place. >Without government to defend the right of private property there would >be no property but what the strong seized from those unable to defend >themselves. ... >Even the classical economic philosophers like Adam Smith and others >realized that some form of government was necessary in order to >allow free markets to exist. Otherwise we would wind up with piracy. I agree! If you reread my original posting, you'll find that it says nothing about abolishing government. Hope you didn't want to debate that point, because I'll concede it outright. The point of my letter, which I thought I made clear, was simply that taxation is coercive. That seemed to me to be a productive starting point for further discussion. I hope further postings prove me right. > tim sevener whuxl!orb > --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/15/85)
> I agree! If you reread my original posting, you'll find that it says > nothing about abolishing government. Hope you didn't want to debate that > point, because I'll concede it outright. > > The point of my letter, which I thought I made clear, was simply that taxation > is coercive. That seemed to me to be a productive starting point for > further discussion. I hope further postings prove me right. I'm glad you don't advocate the abolition of government. What do you propose as a non-coercive mechanism to support the activities of the government? Or do you admit that taxation, coercive or not, is the best or only way to support government? J. Giles