dineen@apollo.uucp (Terence H Dineen) (02/20/85)
> Why don't you guys grant the libertarian's *technical* meaning of coercion > *purely for the sake of the argument* so we can spend less time quibbling > about definitions? > > The technical meaning of coercion is clear: Someone is coercing you when > he makes you do something, or does something to you or your property, > that you did not want to do or have done, by force, threat of force, > or deception. If you are using the word with some other definition > in mind, please say so when you use it. > > --JoSH I was not quibbling about definitions. I was making a claim about taxation not about the definition of "coercion". I subscribe to the definition of coercion given above. And, using that definiton, I simply do not feel coerced to pay taxes for the simple reason that I retain the option to terminate the deal. I don't expect anyone would use "force, threat of force, or deception" to collect taxes from me after I had moved to Sweden, for example. I know that states use coercion and find it is appalling; debasing the meaning of coercion by applying it the kind of taxation I am subject to here in the US does not seem constuctive. -- on the wrong side of the gender gap
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (02/27/85)
> And, using that definiton, I simply do not feel coerced to pay taxes > for the simple reason that I retain the option to terminate the deal. I don't > expect anyone would use "force, threat of force, or deception" to collect taxes > from me after I had moved to Sweden, for example. > Sweden would. Dani Eder . ssc-vax!eder . Boeing