SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> (08/25/86)
--------------- Return-Path: <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Date: Fri 22 Aug 86 00:40:46-PDT From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: general principles vs. peripheral issues Gee, if I am being robbed I sure don't consider the question of whether the robber is likely to kill me peripheral. I consider it quite important. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------
SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA (08/25/86)
Gee, if I am being robbed I sure don't consider the question of whether the robber is likely to kill me peripheral. I consider it quite important. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/10/86)
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Gee, if I am being robbed I sure don't consider the question of
whether the robber is likely to kill me peripheral. I consider
it quite important.
My peripheral I do not mean unimportant, I mean not central. If no
force or threat of force is used there is no robbery. If the
perpetrator does not steal anything or attempt to steal anything,
there is no robbery. But robbery is robbery whether or not the victim
is killed. And robbery is wrong whether or not the victim is killed.
Robbers often throw themselves on the mercy of the court saying that
they didn't actually hurt anyone. Do you think such people should be
automatically set free? But if a "robber" demonstrates that no force
or threat of force was used, then the court has to find him not guilty
of robbery. He may be guilty of theft or burglary, but not robbery.
And if a "robber" demonstrates that nothing was stolen nor did he
intend to steal anything, then the court has to find him not guilty of
robbery. He may be guilty of assault and battery, but not robbery.
This is all I mean by "central".
Taxation is thus robbery by definition. And is no more legitimized
by the fact that nobody is shot by the IRS on April 15th than an armed
robbery is legitimized if the robber's gun is found to not be loaded.
Nor is it any more legitimized by the fact that the money is put to
good use (in some people's opinions) than is street robbery if the
robber intended to use his loot to pay for groceries rather than
illegal drugs.
If you refuse to pay taxes you will be sent to prison. If you
attempt to leave the prison you will be shot and killed. Does failure
to pay taxes really deserve such a fate?
People often say "there ought to be a law" when they mean "people
should (or should not) do that". Next time you think "there ought to
be a law" replace that thought with "people who behave that way should
be confined to a very unpleasant and dangerous place and shot to death
if they attempt to leave". If that is what you mean, fine. There are
actions which do deserve such a fate. But if you really mean "I wish
people didn't act like that" then hopefully you will stop thinking
"there ought to be a law" instead. There ought to be a lot fewer
laws. When an average citizen can't possibly hope to know all the
laws he can be punished for breaking, something is seriously wrong.
Perhaps you think people should be ostracized for not paying taxes.
But imprisoned? Killed?
...Keith
[ I'd say that anyone in prison (for whatever reason) knows the
dangers of attempting to escape. I think you're pushing the point
rather too far. What would be the substance of this ostracization you
write of? - CWM]
-------