The Facebook post stated "Claiming that income tax is moral, is a claim that slavery is moral.".
That's a completely reasonable statement. But someone then posted a comment saying, "Wealth tax is required." Whatever a "wealth tax" is.
I responded with a link to my "Theft by any other name" video.
She replied, "No taxes, no army. No army, no defence. No defence, no state. No state, no laws. No laws, no peace."
I said,
"I don't need a theft-funded army for my defense. Why would you imagine you do?
The state is your enemy, or you don't understand what the State is. http://famguardian.org/.../OurEnemyTheState...
http://mises.org/daily/2352
There are only two kinds of "law": the unnecessary and the harmful. Which type do you imagine promotes peace?
"Laws" against actual wrongs (murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, assault, trespass, etc.) are unnecessary. These "laws" aren't necessary for you to have the right to defend yourself from these acts.
"Laws" against anything else (vices, trade, tools of defense, resisting government theft and aggression, etc.) -- AND "laws" allowing government employees to commit the actual wrongs in the first list as long as they are called something else (taxation, war, officer safety, arrest, airport security, etc.), are harmful.
Your argument fails."
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have included the last sentence.
Her dismissive last shot? "neat. Don't complicate a complex argument and sleep tight! 😁"
So is she saying her comment was "complex"? I guess she's too deep a thinker for me.
_______________
Reminder: I think I could really use some help.
_______________
Reminder: I think I could really use some help.
