Wow, the New York Times, that perennial liberal mouthpiece of the Establishment, sure can say stupid things. But this time they have beaten anything else they could possibly come up with in the future.
Powerful anti-tax rhetoric has made legislators at every level of government afraid to talk publicly about a need to raise taxes. The constituents of the few who dare speak are typically bombarded with attack ads that go something like this: ‘It’s your money, but your esteemed senator thinks the bureaucrats in Washington know how to spend it more wisely than you do.’ … One strategy would be to inform voters that the ‘it’s your money’ argument is incoherent. Taken to its logical conclusion, it implies that it is illegitimate for the government to collect taxes. But if that were true, there could be no government and no army, in which case, the United States would have long ago been conquered by another country. Then we’d be paying compulsory taxes to that country’s government.
Actually, the situation he described already happened. This “country” used to belong to the English, and people used to pay their taxes to the English Monarchy: it was an English country. So by his own reasoning, we should all pay taxes to the United Kingdom, and the American refusal to pay the tea tax was unjust!
What an retarded, self-refuting imbecile! But of course this the quality of disgusting statist rhetoric that we should expect from the New York Times.
Yes, it is illegitimate for the government to collect taxes. It goes against Common Law and natural rights, and any other standard of justice not based on the State’s arbitrary decisions. Yes, there can be no government based on just principles. But that does not mean there would be no army! The idea that we need a monopoly of force in order to have a military is ridiculous. The recent stalemate extracted by Hezbollah, and the defeat of the US and UN troops against the Somali Anarchy, remind us of this fact. Yes, people can organize themselves and delegate defense to a group of people, and pay them. How this could possibly require a State is beyond any possible reckoning!
“Anarchy would make us weak” is a blatant ad hoc attempt to portray Anarchy as unworkable. This statement is based on no empirical, deductive or economic evidence. It is nothing but hot air.
Thanks to Joel Schlosberg for the quote.