Francisco Ferrer

I read your posts. I simply remain unconvinced by your A = B view, because what you claim you are does not match what you're complaining about. If you had read my posts then you would know that taxes are only one of the ways that public services can be paid for. "What you claim you are does not match what you're complaining about." True, a man complaining about Obama does not match Obama. Two different people. Since utopian fantasies are utterly powerless to set public policy, it's fitting that you pay taxes for the services you receive. The British crown and most of Europe regarded the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence as an impractical, utopian fantasy. Yet the "utopians" ended up victorious and setting public policy anyway. If it is fitting that I pay for public services I use, then it is not fitting that I pay for public services (food stamps, public housing, etc.) that I do not use, and therefore, 90% of my tax bill should be returned to me. I'm talking about you, not about others. This is the reason you handle reality so poorly, and can only end up complaining about how you are a slave... and the real irony is you don't even have the foggiest notion that is a judgment you have already pronounced upon yourself... and the self imposed sentence you now serve is just the foregone conclusion. What others are you talking about? I do not know of anyone (other than yourself) who ignores history and relies entirely on personal experience to form conclusions about the world around him: In your view... history guides your actions in the present. In my view... experience guides my actions in the present. If, in your opinion, identifying abusive government power is handling "reality so poorly," then any critic of tyranny and the violation of man's rights would be handling it poorly, including Ayn Rand, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and Patrick Henry. Apparently, when Jefferson wrote, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," he was pronouncing judgment upon himself and giving himself a self-imposed sentence. Well, in case you haven't heard (due to avoiding history as a guide), Jefferson's side won the Revolution.

Time to grow up, Fred. That's how the government pays for the public services that you use. This further demonstrates that you respond to posts without reading them. I have already said in this thread that the government can raise funds through non-coercive means, such as user fees, which are not a form of robbery, and that I would pay such fees. But why bother reading what other people have written? The writing of others occurred in the "dead past," and it is only your own experience that guides your actions in the present. Again, if we have no personal experience of a man's criminal record or his history of alcohol abuse or his inability to pay his debts or his poor work history, we would have to treat him as just as qualified as any other candidate for the job we are offering. After all, what's the point of consulting someone else's history with the candidate, when only our own experience with him matters? And why bother looking at consumer ratings or asking friends about their opinions of certain cars, appliances, books, etc. when what happened to them lies in the dead past and only our own experience with products matters? Why look at someone else's wheel when we can have the experience of re-inventing the wheel ourselves?

... in your view.My view is based upon my own personal experience as well as my observations of others. In this instance it is reading your impotent complaints, and your A = B view that what you sow has absolutely nothing to do with what you reap. While the objective A = A reality of the circumstances of your own life as described in your own words says otherwise. In Post #91 you used me as an example to prove that we get the government we deserve: You've stated repeatedly that you do not want to pay taxes to the government for the public services you receive. You've stated repeatedly that it's wrong for the government to collect tax money from you to pay for the public infrastructure you use. You fully deserve to feel exactly as you do that you're being robbed by the government, because you expect someone else to pay for the public services you receive... That, as I have shown, is a lie. Therefore, your claim that government serves out just rewards is based on a lie. Back into the dead past again like a blind scribe... That blindness is what renders you incapable of properly dealing with the present. And that's why you're a slave of the government in the present. You live by history, while I live by experience. This is why we each have completely different attitudes towards life which set into motion completely different experiences of how government treats each of us. Greg If the past is of no interest, no use, then we would have to release murders, rapists and molesters from prison as their crimes exist only in the "dead past," not in the present. A contract would not be enforceable because it was signed not in the present but in the "dead past." We would have to reject the word of every book written in or about the "dead past," including the Holy Bible, because Nazi Germany was not part of our experience, nor the Civil War, nor the signing of the Declaration of Independence, nor the Sermon on the Mount, nor the Crucifixion.

In your A = B view, of course you believe that is so. Your view of yourself is that what you are has absolutely no relation to how you are treated by the government. You see yourself as an innocent victim A getting unjust treatment B. While in my A = A view what you are has everything to do with your experience of the government... as well as mine. In my A = A view, the more I refine my life, the more freedom from government I enjoy, because I discovered by my own personal experience the truth about government: Government is subject to exactly the same moral laws that I am. Our two antithetical views each turn loose completely different sets of consequences onto our respective lives. In your own words you succinctly described the consequences set into motion by how you live: Poor baby. Greg Your claim that government gives us what we deserve is based on lies, as I've shown in my previous response to you. In this context, it is not surprising that you contently pay taxes to Obama's government and consider yourself free. Many Germans thought they were free under Hitler.

So the answer to the question of whether people should be prosecuted for tax evasion is that Francisco Ferrer refuses "to recognize the legitimacy of the United States"? So much for efficient thinking. To the degree that the United States government treats individual rights as inviolable, it stands as the polar opposite of the Soviet Union. To the degree that the United States government treats the individual as just another "national resource" to be taxed, drafted, regulated, censored, disarmed, imprisoned and, if necessary, exterminated, then it approaches the character of the former "Worker's Paradise." Here's the context: I built my fortune. Obama did not. Therefore by what right is Obama entitled to any part of what I created? By that rule, there would have been justice in keeping 3,953,761 slaves in bondage in 1864 and only releasing them gradually, "realistically" over a few generations until slavery was perceived as "the non-essential (and immoral) 'man-made' thing it is." Presumably, until the release of all slaves, it would be rational to think of slavery as essential and moral. Strawman. No one here has advocated doing nothing. The people who typically conclude that nothing can be accomplished without the initiation of force are statists and collectivists. The people who typically claim they cannot survive without force are those who are too lazy, too timid, too incompetent to lift a finger to accomplish a goal for themselves. Despite the fact that our government is now under the control of radical Marxist elements, I am confident that there are enough rational, honest, and hard-working Americans left to take the country back and achieve any other worthy purpose in the interim. Obviously, there are degrees of enslavement. I've made this clear all along since Post #32: "The difference between enslaving a man full time (taking all of his labor) and enslaving him part time (seizing a portion of the products of his labor) is only one of degree." Your suggestion that I've treated them as exactly equivalent is yet another strawman. Philosophy, including ethics and politics, is a matter of deriving a set of principles from a study of man's nature. One of the principles of Objectivism is the freedom to act without coercion: Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights . . . If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave." (Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights") Now if we grant certain groups (governments) a right to use force to obtain money or manpower, then obviously Rand's principle that "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man" is in error. Yet so far no one on this forum or elsewhere has shown why this principle is invalid. The quote from Bissel about altruism is quite interesting and I'll pass it along the next time I encounter an altruist.

You may quote Rand all you wish on opposing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, favoring bombing communist villages, supporting Rehnquist for the Supreme Court, or thinking Joe McCarthy was too soft on communism. The only relevant quote would be a statement from Ayn Rand that she favored continuing to put people in jail for failing to pay their income tax. But since we do not have Rand herself on that topic, I'll put the question to you: Do you favor the continued use of government police powers to identify, capture, prosecute, and punish people who are not rendering enough unto the federal government? Should Objectivists support jailing and fining people who are not paying their "fair share" of taxes? And if so, how is this morally different from creating an army of slaves, which Rand vehemently opposed?

You've already provided plenty of proof. You've stated repeatedly that you do not want to pay taxes to the government for the public services you receive. You've stated repeatedly that it's wrong for the government to collect tax money from you to pay for the public infrastructure you use. You fully deserve to feel exactly as you do that you're being robbed by the government, because you expect someone else to pay for the public services you receive... ...and so you do. A = A More lies. More bearing of false witness. Anyone who actually took the trouble to read Post #82 and give it any thought would conclude that I use public roads only because they are part of the coercive state transportation monopoly, that I've paid for that usage many times over not only through income and property taxes but through fuel taxes, that I've never asked for a free ride but expressed a willingness to continue to pay for whatever I consume through usage fees, and that I've called for the lifting of compulsory financing not only from my own neck but from the neck of every other American. Now since I've made it perfectly clear that no one should pay a cent to the government except for those items that they voluntarily contract for, the dishonest accusation that I "expect someone else to pay for the public services" I receive comes not out of negligence, dyslexia or stupidity but from willful slander. Now we can see that the only way to prove that we get exactly the government we deserve is to spread contemptible falsehoods.

I put the following query to you in Post #32: Let's ask a related question: what kind of person would be willing to enjoy the freedoms of living in America without the concomitant willingness to fight for those freedoms? Should we therefore conclude that the draft is a morally legitimate way of raising an army? (If you're interested in how Ayn Rand would answer, read "The Roots of War.") The difference between enslaving a man full time (taking all of his labor) and enslaving him part time (seizing a portion of the products of his labor) is only one of degree. Rand opposed the military draft even at the height of the Cold War, when the Pentagon's manpower needs were supposedly direst. She wrote, It is often asked: “But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?” Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War I. (2) If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government. For the exact same reasons, voluntary financing of government is one of the best protectors of freedom. "If a country’s government undertakes" an effort "which the citizens neither share nor understand," it will not find many people of means to support it. Currently, the government seizes a third of my income from me; I am its slave for virtually four months out of the year. What can possibly justify slavery on that scale? The greater good of the nation and its people? But that is a utilitarian idea, diametrically opposed to the principles of "The Objectivist Ethics," "Man's Rights," and "The Nature of Government." She never said the government has the right to take a man's life or a part of it (his income) in order to fight the Russians. As long as the government kidnaps and imprisons people who fail to pay their taxes, it is no different morally from the Mafia beating people up and destroying their businesses for failing to pay protection money. I have been a victim of hoodlums. I have been robbed at gunpoint on what I thought was a safe street. I have had thieves break into my home, destroy furniture and run away with thousands of dollars in electronic equipment. The biggest difference between government and small time crooks, is that the private thief doesn't come back every April to demand that I pay more of my "fair share." I understand that Obama's government is not George Washington's government, and that it would be an evasion of reality to pretend that they have any significant similarities. If anything, Obama's government is worse than the foreign occupation force that Gen. Washington defeated.

The enforcement of a bad law is very much a wrong on its own. If an organization agrees to engage in the practice of stealing from others and hires a group of men to use force to grab this money, both the planners of the crime and the actual perpetrators of the crime are committing a rights violation. But if the enforcers choose not to carry out their orders, they should be commended for resisting a command to deny others what is rightfully theirs. By failing to enforce, they have prevented an injustice. Whether tax robbery is ever repealed from the books, we must encourage the least degree of enforcement, for upholding a bad law can only make the assault on liberty worse. Elected Republicans can demonstrate their commitment to private property by radically reducing the IRS budget each year until it reaches zero. When it is completely toothless, the income tax will be truly voluntary and not a "tax" at all. No law is a problem if no one loses his rights as a result of it. For example, in many states laws against miscegenation remained on the books long after law enforcement agencies stopped paying attention to them. Alabama did not repeal its law until 2001. I want the repeal of all rights-violating laws, and in the interim favor the enforcement of none.

If a government official receives stolen goods, any action other than returning those goods to their proper owners compounds the original evil of theft. If a modern day Robin Hood were to cyber-loot the bank account of the world's richest software developer, it wouldn't matter how worthy the recipient of the stolen money was. If the money went to help the poor defend themselves from street gangs and crime overlords, the loot is still stolen, and no justice can occur until it is restored to the rightful owner. Let Robin Hood be benevolent and generous with his own damn dough. Similarly, if the President of the United States wants to help Israel, he can resign his office, move to Tel Aviv, join the IDF, and set a shining example for other Americans to follow. This argument is no different from Modern Robin Hood whining, "But the poor need this money for self-defense now! Eventually, they will be able to stand on their own. When they can, I will stop looting Mr. Moneybags's account. Until then, looting is legitimized by the evolving self-defense needs of others." "A man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right)." --Ayn Rand Furthermore, if the government forms a monopoly by limiting or excluding competitors in certain enterprises, the citizen has no choice but to be a consumer of government-provided services. Without choice, there can be no morality.

Even though in my view that the source of the law of identity (A is A) is God, Who said "I Am that I Am" thousands of years before Ayn Rand ever did... we're in complete agreement on that law. And being subject to A = A , it's perfect moral justice that you deserve to feel the pain of being robbed just as you would wish to rob others to pay for the public services you receive... If you accuse others of wishing to commit a crime and are unable or unwilling to provide evidence for that accusation, expect to be called a liar. You have not a scrap of evidence to show that I "wish to rob others." Therefore, you are a liar. For those who read the Bible, it's also known as bearing false witness. Not only have I paid for so-called "public services" hundreds of times over and above what I actually consume, I have consistently called on the government to stop robbing everyone in America, not least of whom myself. Then we now have further proof that the government does not give us what we deserve for I have never passed the judgment that I deserve to be taxed and regulated. If the just desserts of advocating capitalism is that one gets Obama and socialized medicine, then surely the just desserts of advocating dictatorship is that one should get more freedom. But clearly that is not happened to those who worked to get Obama elected and re-elected. Tax robbery is not self-inflicted and deserved any more than rape is.

Nothing is truly involuntary unless there is force or the serious threat of force employed. Contrary to what you said in your first post, all laws and rules do not have to be enforced. For example, in my state all gambling (except for the state monopoly lottery) is illegal. Yet I am certain that there are thousands of amateur poker players here who bet money weekly or perhaps more frequently, and I cannot think of the last time anyone was arrested for it. No one doubts that the anti-gambling law is on the books, but it is not enforced (and is virtually unenforceable). The point here is that no poker player bothers speaking out against the law. It is not the law but the enforcement that they would find objectionable. The vital difference is that the relationship a citizen has with Wal-Mart comes as a result of the citizen's choice, his voluntary action in entering its store or website and selecting a product to buy, or entering Wal-Mart's national office and making a deal to manufacture widgets. There is nothing like that in the citizen's relationship with government. The government imposes payment obligations on a citizen completely without regard to the citizen's choices, preferences or actions. There is no contract, period: not written, not verbal. In sum, it is the difference between a free society and collectivism. Now if the state would treat non-payment of taxes the same way it treats private poker games, those who love freedom and loathe to surrender their property to a government thief could live without complaint. It is the enforcement that matters.

I understand that in your view you believe it is false. This is because of your irrational hallucinogenic fantasy that you shouldn't have to pay for the public infrastructure you use, and that it should be provided to you for free. The only people who believe that are unproductive freeloaders who expect to get something for nothing. You want to get the benefit of the public infrastructure, but yet you don't want to pay for it, so you call it "theft". Question: So if you don't have to pay for it, just who do you expect to pay for the public infrastructure you use? Answer: Someone else. I'm really glad that you won't ever get your way... ...because if you were to get your Utopian fantasy, that would mean robbing others to pay for the public services that you use. And since you want to rob others, it's perfect moral justice that you should suffer the pain of living with the constant angst of feeling that you are being robbed. You're getting exactly what you deserve... because only you can rob yourself of freedom. Greg I think that swimming is a healthy, invigorating activity that benefits people of all ages. Suppose I build an Olympic size pool in my yard, staff it with lifeguards and maintenance crews, and invite the whole neighborhood to enjoy it. Then the following April I send every homeowner in the sub-division an invoice for $300.00, their "fair share" of what it cost to build the pool. If anyone refused to pay, would I be justified in sending a gang of roughnecks to his home to threaten him with guns, kidnap him, and hold him in a cage until his "fair share" of the "infrastructure" along with penalties for delayed payment is coughed up? Of course not. But this arrangement is no different from what governments do every day. And it doesn't matter whether the coercion is done by a single man with a swimming pool or by a large gang with "majority rule." Property rights don't come from governments or majorities. They are derived from man's nature. The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life. (Atlas Shrugged) Those rights, including the right to the full fruit of one's labors, are violated if anyone demands with the threat of a gun payment for a product or service which a citizen did not voluntarily contract for. As for public services, I use public roads based on the common law, non-possessory easement right to access my own home and other homes and businesses of welcoming members of the community. And that's about it. If the state lifts the yoke of income taxation it has placed on my neck, I'll be happy to pay user fees for the streets and highways I motor on. As for robbing others, since I'm in the top 25% income bracket, I am a net income taxpayer, not a net income tax receiver. If I were getting everything I deserved, I would have all of my stolen property returned to me (at least $1 million plus opportunity costs) less the pittance in what I get from public services. Since it was the U.S. Treasury that demanded that I file this return, and since I have no employment with or authority over the treasury, clearly it is not I that is committing robbery.

If the state did not enforce its demand that I pay it a portion of my income, I would ignore it and go on with my life in peace. It is the state's enforcers, its gang of armed thugs throwing peaceful citizens in jail, that motivates me and many others to seek removal of the parasites from power. The state cannot be compared to a family or a business because those relationships allow for discontented parties to withdraw in peace. The state, on the other hand, imposes and enforces a livelong obligation on each of its subjects to submit, obey and pay until the last breath is expelled from the body. I have a problem with taxes per se because their very nature is involuntary. tax (taks) noun: tax; plural noun: taxes 1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions [emphasis added]

If you do that in your own life first... the outside world will graciously acquiesce to what you are inside. Everything you are complaining about on the outside is only a symptom of what you are on the inside, and not the cause. When it comes to "what I truly am inside," I run a tight ship. But never mind me; there are any number of good, deeply religious people who, despite their character, moral strength, and what they "are on the inside," are regularly robbed by Obama and Company to support the tax feeder class. Thus, we have more than sufficient objective evidence to show that people are "prey of the government" despite the absence of moral weakness. Why not simply produce enough so that it doesn't matter? Problem solved. Problem not solved. 1. No thief is entitled to a nickel of a man's income, much less a third of it. 2. Justice requires that the perpetrator of theft return not only what has been taken but additional value for full restitution. "If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." (Exodus 22:1) 3. Continued feeding of the gang of robbers in Washington makes them stronger and us weaker. The government can only violate Commandments on you personally that you first violate yourself, because it is subject to exactly the same moral laws that you are. Good. This proves the theory that people get the government they deserve is false. I do not steal from from anyone. I do not threaten to kidnap people and hold them in a cage for not giving me a share of their income. Yet the government steals thousands from me and returns every year to repeat that crime and demand still more. An honest look at myself and my situation leads to one conclusion: there is no causal relationship between my my moral condition and the government's treatment of me. The Ten Commandments does not say "Thou shalt not steal, unless of course the person thou stealeth from be morally weak." Thus the government is in gross violation of the Judeo-Christian ethic and any association it or its apologists may claim to such an ethic is now void and invalid. In America today (standard disclaimer), the government cannot take liberty away from anyone who doesn't piss it away themselves. Why? Because liberty does not come from the government. It comes from God. Experience refutes the theory that we get the government we deserve. When my sister was arrested for pot possession, she did not handcuff herself and put herself in jail. Nor has she ever wished for, advocated, conspired to, or in any way participated in the kidnapping and detention of another human being. The government's actions in incarcerating her were entirely unnecessary, undeserved and unjust. If we need further proof that citizens can lose liberty that they did not take away from themselves, here it is. Thought frequently has nothing to do with objective reality... which is nothing more than the consequences of your own actions. So until you can make the connection between the objective reality of the just and deserved consequences you are complaining about and your own actions that are causing them... you will never enjoy liberty. If "thought frequently has nothing to do with objective reality," then thinking bad thoughts, morally weak thoughts, etc. has nothing to do with government violating our personal and property rights. Yes, you've convinced me. The connection I have now made is that since government is an agency of rights violation (evil), it cannot be an agency for delivering just and deserved consequences (good), any more than a child molester can ever make a trustworthy kindergarten teacher. Good. Now go learn how to live so that it doesn't oppress YOU. There is a way. So it's totally up to you whether or not you learn for yourself. And if you choose not to learn, you have no one else to blame but yourself. Just as Paul Revere spread the word that the enemies of freedom were on the march, I will continue to spread the idea that capitalism works and that the parasites who are presently sucking life from us must be cast off. Yes that's right. Israel's moral strength is the only thing that prevents it from becoming prey of the Jewhaters. That means that Israel can stop building walls, training soldiers and buying weapons. One little drop of moral strength is all it takes to keep the "Jewhaters" of the world away. As I see it, people who smoke marijuana have already imprisoned themselves. Physical imprisonment is nothing compared to the self imposed internal confinement in the prison of hallucinogenic fantasy. Greg Then how can being put in a government jail be a just and deserved consequence?

Your complaint of being a helpless victim of unjust government oppression flies in the face of your judgment. There is no moral weakness in being honest, in telling the truth, in calling out evil. Ayn Rand said, "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment." I pay taxes because if I refused I'd be placed in a federal cage. It is no different from a man handing over his wallet to an armed thug under the threat of being shot. What I say applies right here and right now in America because America was founded on Judeo/Christian values. That fact is what makes this nation exceptional. The Judeo-Christian roots of the country are of no significance if the government of the country routinely violates Commandments six, eight and ten. Needing to resort to making up imaginary situations doesn't mean anything to me because they're not real. I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that my belief that the government takes property and liberty away from people who have not initiated force against others is based on my imagination. However, I rather think it's objective reality. To take just one example, in 2012 over 99,000 people served time in federal prison for drug offenses. My sister was once put into a cage for having marijuana in her purse. Did I just imagine my sister in jail? Look... I understand that because the government is oppressing you, it's perfectly natural for you to assume that it oppresses everyone else just like you. But what is missing from your blanket assumption is the understanding of how bureaucracies work. They run on a mixture of arbitrary capricious and unaware combined with incompetence. The larger they grow, the more internally conflicted they become.Never have I said that government oppresses everyone equally. The government is a criminal gang and like any other gang operates to enrich its members while exploiting its victims. I do not sit. I am a very active advocate of freedom. In my lifetime I have contributed to the successful efforts to end the draft and legalize gold. On the local level I've helped remove high tax politicians from office. You must have me confused with Fred. What's the problem? Israel's enemies can only harm those who have "moral weakness that renders them prey," right?

More politics then? With the desired consequence of 'less' politics? Dunno, but opposing politics with politics seems like fighting floodwaters with water. Voting and running for office are a legitimate means of self-defense. As Spooner wrote, In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot [*8] himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him. There is no doubt that statism has a considerable body of adherents. Obama didn't get elected twice simply because his Republican opponents were awful. Understand also that the welfare state is kept in power by the fact that the majority of net tax recipients can outvote a minority of net taxpayers. The top 25% of income earners pay 87% of taxes. Still, the undercurrent of tax opposition runs strong and those who advocate a free society should see that opposition as a natural constituency.

Taxation has a special place in American history for it was one of the key complaints that sparked our Revolution of 1776. I do not dismiss the essential role of ideas in political change. However, direct action, i.e. the willingness of the average person to switch from his everyday labors to unlawful and dangerous measures is generally motivated by specific grievances. By the way, America had a second rebellion in 1791 after the Constitution was adopted. It was, regrettably, suppressed by President Washington, but it too was over taxes. Allow me enough gross over-simplification (btw I know quite a bit of US history, if not deeply) to say that in my experience people generally want to feel 'right'. Heinlein had it there'd always be the makers, takers and fakers. Eventually, many can - and I believe will - want to be more aware of the ideas that shape them -the unknown philosophies which control them - and will coax themselves to the good ideas. Even those takers and fakers have a sense of the injustice of being on the receiving end, at others' expense. To say nothing of guilt. Or of pride. Briefly, I'm not too sure about taxation as the traditional rallying cry for freedom, any longer. I believe the more it is about money, the more it seems to confirm the worst impressions the left have of capitalists holding onto their misbegotten wealth. My way (obviously not alone here)would be to push the ideas of individualism, self-interest and personal liberty, uncompromisingly - without their attendant efficacy even, and outside of Party Politics, and with little mention of taxation - until those principles become part of the common discourse. A generation or two, and things can change drastically. If not in the USA, where else? My perspective on the American home front is that the average American dislikes the income tax and hates the IRS. Attacking the tax thieves is good politics here.

Taxation has a special place in American history for it was one of the key complaints that sparked our Revolution of 1776. I do not dismiss the essential role of ideas in political change. However, direct action, i.e. the willingness of the average person to switch from his everyday labors to unlawful and dangerous measures is generally motivated by specific grievances. By the way, America had a second rebellion in 1791 after the Constitution was adopted. It was, regrettably, suppressed by President Washington, but it too was over taxes.

(shrug...) Then your choice to blame Obama for how your life is turning out has obviously given you exactly what you deserve. Your honest comment does serve to highlight the difference between our two approaches to life. Barack Obama doesn't affect the quality of my life like he is affecting yours. This is because the rights I enjoy are not dependent upon what any politician does. Since each of us lives differently, each of us naturally sets into motion completely different consequences.Greg It has "obviously given" me no such thing. ... in your view of yourself as a helpless victim of Obama ruining your life. Do you have the slightest idea of how self defeating that attitude is? You've just pronounced judgment upon yourself and carried out the sentence you deserve. The judgment I pronounced on myself is that "moral weakness" is absent from "what I truly am inside." Thus, the theory that my "own moral weakness . . . renders" me "prey of the government deserve" is invalid. And can we rest assured that people with a similar attitude have been able to maintain a high quality of life in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? After all, folks only get the communism they deserve, right? The undeserving are left in peace. Laissez-faire. The word "welcome" doesn't even enter into the picture, Fred. Who's "Fred"? Great. That means that if you had a swamp on your property you could drain it, and the EPA wouldn't say "boo" because the feds know they'd never be able to take your rights away. They can't. Your rights are protected by who you "truly are on the inside," right? Perhaps they have a list of those who are free of "moral weakness" and know to leave them alone.

(shrug...) Then your choice to blame Obama for how your life is turning out has obviously given you exactly what you deserve. Your honest comment does serve to highlight the difference between our two approaches to life. Barack Obama doesn't affect the quality of my life like he is affecting yours. This is because the rights I enjoy are not dependent upon what any politician does. Since each of us lives differently, each of us naturally sets into motion completely different consequences. Greg It has "obviously given" me no such thing. "Obviously" would require the existence of objective evidence, which you have fastidiously avoided presenting. The reason Obama does not affect the quality of your life is because you welcome every one of his actions as something you deserve because of "what you truly are inside."

Not so fast Francisco. What you call reflective glass mediocrity is the contours of the bldg specifically designed that way to deflect the strong winds. No small task to design & implement it. Additionally, the foundation needed to be built with the task of retaining the water that is under & fronts it. Water is a formidible adversary. Ask the people of Northern Japan. Getting the concrete (which was special in & of itself), before it starts to harden, from Brooklyn & Queens, on the site & the ability to pump it up the structure is definitely not for the brainless. There's so much more involved that was meticulously thought out by the non-mediocre minds. Have you seen the structure in person? Have you seen the documentary? -Joe:) P.S. Without knowing the inspiration behind the design & construction how can one criticize such? I don't have to know anything about the designer or his thoughts to see that his work is another example of modern architecture's wasteland of graph paper sameness. When Rand wrote The Fountainhead, modernists were bold and original. Today it's all run-of-the-mill me-tooism.

Prove it with objective evidence. My own life. It is undeniably objective proof to me, and to no one else. You can find out for yourself simply by giving up blaming others long enough to take an honest look at the just and deserved consequences your own actions set into motion. It is that act of taking full personal responsibility for what your own actions spin into motion that sets you free! I already performed this little thought experiment and came to the rather startling conclusion that I do not deserve Barack Obama!

But I'm not for doing nothing. In fact, I'm all for those who insist on doing something to do it themselves. You want to help Israel, Mr. Taylor? There are plenty of ways to contribute. Why wait for stingy old Francisco, when you can put your hard earned dollars to work right now? I have no comment on Rand and Goldwater, Rand and Paterson, Rand and the Libertarian Party, et al. because they are irrelevant to the issue of the legitimacy of taxation. If someone cannot grasp the rather obvious distinction between a government with strictly voluntary financing and a society without any government at all, then this discussion may have exceeded the conceptual limits of its participants. No matter. In ethics Rand is as clear as Steuben glass: no initiation of force. In political philosophy equally clear: the same moral standards must apply to both the leader and his subjects. Thus with regard to government financing, there can be no ambiguity: all funds must come from voluntary sources. These are incontrovertible facts supported by several essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, from which I've quoted extensively in this thread. Now if this turns Rand into a rational anarchist, make the best of it. I'm not frightened of being booed. I was booed in high school in the sixties when I spoke out against the draft and laws forbidding abortion. I was booed in a college auditorium in the seventies by feminists when I spoke out against censorship of pornography. In the eighties I was booed for speaking out against the presidential campaign of the phony "small government" conservative Ronald Reagan--for exactly the same reasons Rand disliked him. If I really cared about not being booed I would study public opinion polls more carefully than philosophy, economics and history. And I'd probably sound a lot like Romney or Jeb Bush. Once again, what's stopping you? The longer you wait to give up your life, time and fortune to the State of Israel, the dimmer their prospects will be.

Prove it with objective evidence.