Steal from your Neighbour - It's OK
I am tired of all the correspondents to the newspaper - not to mention in day to day life - calling for government or council to force people to do this or that, or whatever else tickles their fancy at the time. The cannot seem to comprehend what they are asking for, or how it must be attained. People who think themselves moral or just stamping their feet and demanding they be given what they want because they are right, or because it is for the good of the majority, or damn it, just because they WANT IT. Here is a letter to the editor on the subject.
I have a question to ask all those people (Mary Brook especially) who think it is OK to use force upon others to get what they want!
Why does THEFT become OK just because you call it a different name (tax!)
Is it OK if I go round to my neighbours house and take his money?
Is it OK to go to all the houses in the street and take their money?
The answer of course is NO!
What makes it OK for council or government to do it then?
What makes some people think this is the only way humans must interact with each other?
If it is not OK to use force on your children with a smack, Why is it ok to use force and threats (of fines or imprisonment) to achieve what you want on other matters?
The use of force is NOT OK unless it is in self defence to protect the life of yourself, your family or your property from threats or force!
The use of force is the most immoral and uncivilised action one human can take upon another. Intelligent people who think it is OK to get what they want by demanding government or council get it for them by forcing others against their will are immoral unthinking, unprincipled bullies and should be ashamed of themselves.
I challenge these people who consider themselves to have at least half a brain to put it to use and investigate this very simple principle - It is called the "Non-initiation of force."
There is no more moral system than the voluntary interaction between consenting adults when applied to ANY situation.
But then maybe some people don't care about what is moral, and are happy to get their way no matter what!
posted by The Tomahawk Kid at 9:51 am
2 Comments:
Please kindly explain how defense of property falls out of "no-one has the right to initiate force". It all comes down to your definition of force. If you're biased towards the right to property, you're happy to define theft as a kind of force. But if someone tries to take my stuff and I beat their head in, who is initiating the force? If I refuse to give some of my bread to a starving man who subsequently dies of hunger, am I initiating force? The right to property is the logical fallacy of libertarianism - because intuitively we want property, we can't imagine living with out it, and we're happy to bend logic to get it.
"But if someone tries to take my stuff . . . "
The previous statement indicates an initiation of force! - The person is trying to take my property against my will, or by force.
I have the right to protect my property from looters - from theft - that is not initiating force - it is an act of self-defence. Self defence is not an initiation of force.
If I refuse to give some of my bread to a starving man who subsequently dies of hunger, am I initiating force?
- Where is the force here?
- If I ram it down his THROAT against his will it is force.
To twist things as you suggest ie refusing to give him bread, suggesting it is a form of force is truly twisted logic indeed!
You say "If you're biased towards the right to property, you're happy to define theft as a kind of force."
What else could it be? - This principle is really very simple, although a principle most socialists and communists fail, or chose not to understand, but let me explain it in the most basic fashion here. To take something from somebody against their will is an initiation of force - no matter who says it, or what they call it, whether it be Tax, Theft, Un-bundling (as in telecom) or any other form of involuntary expropriation.
Post a Comment
<< Home