Howard Pearce wrote: HP> The purpose of the tax does not change the nature of the action. <HP
That's like saying the purpose of the gunfire does not change whether it's moral. And thank you for your in-depth analysis of how or whether property rights extend to land rents, atmosphere, bodies and streams of water, rain, sunlight, wind, migratory game, fisheries, minerals, spectrum, orbits, expressions, inventions, and reputations. HP> How you plan to spend the money is totally irrelevant. <HP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion BH> Seize/confiscate has connotations that are not satisfied by taxation. <BH HP> for people like you who want to legitimize theft, it may be. <HP Thank you for not disputing any of my analysis about how native speakers of English uses these terms. HP> I suggesr you use a common dictionary defintion. <HP I suggest you try saying something on this subject that we haven't all heard before. If you're unfamiliar with the philosophical justification for minarchism, then try reading: * Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick (ably summarized here <http://www.uab.edu/philosophy/faculty/arnold/Nozick_Part_I.htm> ) * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism * the relevant writings of Leonard Read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read> , Ludwig von Mises <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises> , Friedrich Hayek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek> , James M. Buchanan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Buchanan> , Milton Friedman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman> , Ayn Rand <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand> , and John Hospers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hospers> . (Would you call all of these eminent libertarians "theft legitimizers"?)
