From: Michael Lorrey <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> Date: 12 December 1998 01:04
Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
>> Date: 11 December 1998 16:38
>> Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
>> >>You contend that taxes are theft.
>> >>I contend that not paying taxes is theft.
>> >How can not paying taxes be theft if property doesn't exist? This is
>> >absurd; you can't have a rational discussion with someone whose beliefs
>> >as inconsistent as yours and most of the other socialists around here.
>> You can replace 'theft' with 'denial of access' if you like.
>> I was attempting to use a similar tone of language.
>> How about:
>> Everything is by default accessible to everyone. People define objects
>> 'belonging to them'. They then deny other people access to these
>> This is wrong. However, to encourage people to produce more efficient
>> objects and more of them and to allow for the most efficient production
>> goods, they ought to be rewarded for producing them/copntributing to
>> production. Therefore they are allowed to deny people access to a
>> percentage of these objects. The rest are accessible to everyone.
>> You would call the bits accessible by everyone 'tax' and the bits you are
>> allowed to keep 'property'.
>Listen buddy, the resources were all good and paid for at the source.
I don't believe you _can_ buy them. The abstract concept of 'property' breaks down to the denial of access to somebody. This appears to me to be wrong in much the same way as 'theft' is wrong. By finding a compromise somewhere in between, we can come to a reasonable society.