THEREFOR TAXATION == MURDER Q.E.D. These are equivalencies I have discussed at some length here on BTB, as well as elsewhere. While the moral points are pretty much indisputable, nevertheless, some idiots continue to dispute them. Add to this short list this from Holly Lisle.
Many sages over the years have observed that, if you accept money from the government, you are, in effect, receiving stolen property. This stems from the question: when is it moral for the group to do that which the individual is forbidden? (Answer: never.) If it is impermissible for you to go door-to-door in your town and demand money at gunpoint, how is it proper for you to allow the state to do it on your behalf? This is why the suggestion as put forth, e.g., in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that all government functions be funded exclusively by voluntary subscription is so damned apposite.
And, if you believe that the above Q&A is fallacious — that government should be permitted to do things individuals are forbidden (with the possible exception of the initiation of the use of force — on which I might quibble with Ms Lisle), then you are obviously against individual rights and liberty and are on the wrong side in this argument: by you, slavery and peonage are just ducky.
The point is raised most timely. This year, as last, we shall see many provisions of the Obamacare legislation put in motion. This is a piece — nay, a potpourri, a kudzu — of legislation founded on the principle that it is OK to enslave medical professionals and your neighbors to serve your convenience. Pardon the rest of us if we object.
And, just to nuke a couple of potential arguments:
Taxation without representation. We has it. The entire Federal tax edifice is unconstitutional. It is enforce by forte main in an extra-legal system in which the principles of American jurisprudence are turned on their heads. Nor is there a patriotic duty to pay taxes at all in the first place, but most especially not for extra-legal expenditures. (Hint: very little done by Congress in the past 100 years — the period soi disant — scorn quotes — “progressives” — witter on about when they say We in the Right wish to roll back 100 years of progress. (A consummation devoutly, etc.) — has been according to the Constitution and the limited, enumerated powers granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8, or the define restrictions and limits on congressional power in Article 1, Section 9. (Or, for that matter, the Bill of Rights.) The PATRIOT Act alone renders any congresscritter who did not vote against it in violation of his or her oath of office. Or McCain-Feingold. Or — for that matter — Obamacare.)
These things render all acts of the government illegitimate, which kind of moots the whole power to tax thing.
Second: Yes, it is your convenience. You cannot properly claim necessity in asking for a draw from the common burse in a matter in which you have failed to exercise sufficient prudence. You have not lain aside sufficient wherewithal to cover your debts, or made provision to amortize them over time, it therefore is a matter of your convenience that you require your neighbors to pay for your care, housing, feeding, clothing, education, transport, or any other thing that is part of a life.