Michael Mitchell: Archive

I agree. The real issue is about HOW we pay for the government. If taxation is involuntary, then it leads to the logical conclusion that the government can make and enforce almost any laws and regulations it wishes, in the interest of "what's best for society". "No government, no rights" is a very convincing argument.

I disagree, though, that forced taxation is necessary. It's a violation of rights, and if we don't have rights, then what do we need the government for? Rights come first, logically. Almost everyone believes that people will not willingly pay for the government. "No taxation, no government." I think the opposite is true, that we'd actually see how much we need it, if we had to voluntarily pay for it or be at the mercy of any other country that wishes to invade us or any criminal in our own country who wishes to harm us. We don't appreciate government (not THE government, government in general) because it's forced on us, and that leads us to think it's right to force our ideas on everyone else, any idea we wish, tempered only by a majority vote -- which also happens to be inconsistent with forced taxation.

My point is that issues like this would resolve themselves, if the government didn't interfere with the economy. It's neither a state nor a federal issue. It's a financial one, and, in this political context, if it doesn't, at least potentially, as a choice, benefit everyone, then it should benefit no one.

That's all anyone's arguing about on most political issues: government benefits. If the government didn't have this power, there'd be no issues, no reason to bitch about some receiving more than others.