jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (11/03/84)
> >You people sound like a broken record sometimes. Can't you think of any > >more interesting analogies to make than "Government taxation is theft"? > >If you define theft as "taking money from people without their consent", > > I don't define things that way, the dictionary does. Look it up, and > stop trying to draw a distinction that isn't there. Most of the discussion on Libertarianism says that crimes should be tried as civil cases. That is if I pollute the river that flows onto your property then you should sue me for damages. How does someone sueing me differ from the government taxing me? In both cases money is being taken from me against my will. Is it not theft because an individual instead of a government gets the money? Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry
bruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) (11/04/84)
In article <212@oliveb.UUCP> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: >Most of the discussion on Libertarianism says that crimes should be tried >as civil cases. That is if I pollute the river that flows onto your >property then you should sue me for damages. > >How does someone sueing me differ from the government taxing me? In >both cases money is being taken from me against my will. Is it not >theft because an individual instead of a government gets the money? > > Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC Are you asking this seriously? I don't see a smiley face. It is completely different. In your scenario, you have devalued his property, and you are being (assuming judgement is held against you) asked to compensate him for the damage. If you hadn't destroyed or devalued what was not yours, neither he nor anyone else would have a claim against you. If the government taxes, you'll pay regardless of whether you did anything wrong. -- --Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA ihnp4!godot!bruce, bjn@mit-mc.arpa ... soon to be bruce@godot.arpa!