Call a Duck a Duck, and a State an Honor-less Thief

Lysander Spooner is my hero. His religious views and copyright/patent views aside, I stand in solidarity with him. He was a lawyer when the legislators said he couldn't be. He delivered mail to consumers when the legislators said he could not- resulting in lower prices for consumers. He was an abolitionist when slavery was a la mode. He called the constitution an antislavery manuscript, whilst maintaining that it was of no force.

In any case, the man's writings deserve to be explored. Have at it.

Lucidity is one of my immovable values. Conflation of ideas, meanings, and intentions sully our talks. Whether you disagree or concur with Lysander Spooner, you know where he stands. I made this blog with this intent. I don't think everyone will agree with me. But, these ideas need to be considered outside the hollow halls of Capitol Hill, and the suburban ivory towers of academia. Spooner's lucidity on taxes is unparalleled in today's discourse.

No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either "taxation without consent is robbery," or it is not. 

This is an apodeictic claim. He asks, where do you stand? And by the phrasing of the question, we can infer where he stands. Depending on where you stand, what follows?

If it is not, then any number of men, who choose, may at any time associate; call themselves a government; assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves; plunder them at will; and kill them if they resist. If, on the other hand, taxation without consent is robbery, it necessarily follows that every man who has not consented to be taxed, has the same natural right to defend his property against a taxgatherer, that he has to defend it against a highwayman.

 No one can truly call this argument inconsistent. Spooner goes further. He says a highwayman is evil, but he is a saint in comparison to the State goons. The State goons are duplicitous. The highwayman is lucid in his theft.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave (emphasis is mine).

Spooner continues his kritik, by illustrating the cowardice of State theft. The bureaucracy is so dense and interwoven that the victims of theft don't know whom to blame for the loss of their property. Is it the taxgatherer? The monopolized law writer? The monopolized security that protects and serves the taxgatherer and the monopolized law writer? Is it the bankster whom stores these stolen goods? Is it the rubber stamper, judge, who approves of this process?

The whole institution of coercive governance is to blame. We should have voluntary governance. Furthermore, we must end the State.