I suppose that’s @Wheylous, too.
I don’t think you’re a thief for using that which you pay for.
Like I said, we pay for roads at the gas pumps and in taxes.
There’s no way that I’m a net tax consumer on the basis of my use of roads.
The State is the ruling class. The State is a fuzzier term than government. The government has many employees, including people who do jobs that really do need to be done and would be done even in the absence of a government - think of road maintenance, powerlines, game wardens, etc.
The State, however, is the corrupting principle within all of this. It is the redistributive kernel, the complex of ideological arguments and real social networks which combine together to legitimize and systematize the political means, the means of coercion. Trying to tackle the State by shouting down postal service employees as “parasites!” is as fruitless as trying to stop Genghis Khan by attacking the cooks and camp-attendants.
This is the spirit of striking-the-root - the jugular vein of the State is its revenues streams: taxes, debt and inflation. Delegitimize the systematic fleecing of the populace, and the organs of the State will whither automatically.
But the State is like an ideological fortress… its greatest vulnerability (taxation, revenues) is also its most closely guarded. No subject is more difficult to tackle than taxation. Try it and you will find out just how busy the State has been in constructing a labyrinth of ideological and real defenses. As pointed out in some other thread, one of the books that is actually illegal in The United States of America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave with a First Amendment that guarantees that SouthPark-can-spray-animated-diarrhea-all-over-the-screen is Irwin Schiff’s book on how to legally avoid paying taxes. I mean, how much simpler do we have to make it?
Clayton -
What if a 60-year-old retires from the private sector and then lands an easy job at a public park? He’s paid into having that park open all of his life via taxes. So he’s not a thief, right?
Also, did you conceed the point you made with A? If so, the question of whether or not you “paid in” is irrelevant in the case of public sector employees.
Thanks for the clarification.
Anyone receiving an income from the state is different than having the state monopolize certain services and forcing you to pay for them.
The latter is generally not optional. The former is optional.
Thus taking a job with a park, the salary of which paid out of tax coffers, I would say is participating in theft, as you are being paid with unjustly taken money.
Nobody forces you to use the public roads.
Using the roads cannot be considered stealing. Maybe building them, but not using them.
I agree with you. But if you say that, you also have to say that working for the state isn’t stealing. I see no difference in getting a check from the state and using the state’s goods and services.
Or maybe it’s clearer to say “working for the government”, specifically in the capacities mentioned above (teaching, attending parks, etc.).
Well, the difference is that using the roads does not actually come at a cost to anyone else. You also paid partially for the road through taxes.