Ok but how will you go without roads, sidewalks, gasoline, food, clothes, shelter, etc? The provision of all of these essential products has been invaded by government, despite my wishes to the contrary.

Does your use of gasoline encourage, nay fund, the continuing government use of aggression in the middle east?

It does, however it is not practical to go without (or find alternatives to [all]) these things at this point. If you can get by without requesting money obtained through government aggression you should do so.

I disagree. If the threat is not credible, just how “stolen” is it really? If you don’t defend your property but hand it over willingly just because I sent you a letter demanding it, isn’t the transfer voluntary?

If you tell someone you have a gun and request their money, should you not go to prison because the victims didn’t check for sure that you actually had a gun before handing you the money? Good luck arguing that case in court.

By requesting handouts you’re asking the government to oppress people on your behalf.

No I think you’re conflating two steps here. And some handouts are involuntary, or package deals. Some you can’t reasonably avoid.

That’s why I said “requesting” if the government sends you money you didn’t ask for it’s a different story. Just like if they build a road you didn’t ask for and there is no private alternative it’s a different story.

Sure, but giving in to non-credible threats is also wrong.

Two wrongs make a right? Victims deserve to be punished more because they didn’t resist enough the first time?

No, because people always have a choice as to whether they will comply or not with the government’s requests for more money.

People aren’t resisting it enough, therefore taxation is morally right??

I don’t know of any candidates who want to “bring the government system crashing down”.

And neither is the welfare system’s intent to bring the government down.

The problem with this argument is that it is a greater good or ends justify the means argument. Let us do (or encourage) evil so that good may result.

Does your use of gasoline encourage, nay fund, the continuing government use of aggression in the middle east?

I think I’ve got plenty of real world examples in the original post and continue to reject the ipod scenario.

Whether the stolen item can be returned, and whether the stolen item was stolen through a non-credible threat does not change the fact that it is stolen.

I disagree. If the threat is not credible, just how “stolen” is it really? If you don’t defend your property but hand it over willingly just because I sent you a letter demanding it, isn’t the transfer voluntary?

By requesting handouts you’re asking the government to oppress people on your behalf.

No I think you’re conflating two steps here. And some handouts are involuntary, or package deals. Some you can’t reasonably avoid.

Whether or not the oppressed believe the government threat is credible or not doesn’t change the fact that extortion (even with a non-credible threat) is wrong.

Sure, but giving in to non-credible threats is also wrong.

Requesting the fruits of extortion encourages (if not outright creates) further extortion.

No, because people always have a choice as to whether they will comply or not with the government’s requests for more money.

If it is not wrong to request handouts from the government in order to bring it down faster, why do you say it is wrong to vote? Shouldn’t you feel compelled to vote for the candidate you feel will bring the government system crashing down faster?

Perhaps you have a point there. Maybe it is morally acceptable to vote. However I don’t know of any candidates who want to “bring the government system crashing down”.

By requesting handouts you’re asking the government to oppress people on your behalf. Whether or not the oppressed believe the government threat is credible or not doesn’t change the fact that extortion (even with a non-credible threat) is wrong. Requesting the fruits of extortion encourages (if not outright creates) further extortion.

If it is not wrong to request handouts from the government in order to bring it down faster, why do you say it is wrong to vote? Shouldn’t you feel compelled to vote for the candidate you feel will bring the government system crashing down faster?

more will be collected

You mean, more money will be asked for from people. But no one has to hand over that money. It is within the power of each and every one of us to withdraw our financial support of the state. We can’t feasibly withdraw it all immediately, but we can certainly make a huge impact right now.

I don’t think anyone is a fool for paying into the system at the point of a gun.

True, however, most people pay at the point of a piece of cheap paper. The IRS rarely brings out their guns. Their threat to force 120 million+ people to pay up is NOT credible, at least not until they actually come out in person.

Let’s not perpetuate this myth that government is all powerful nor that all government requests are credible threats of aggression.

Is it right or wrong to buy the stolen ipod?

The proper analogy is, if all the ipods available for purchase are stolen, and you have no way of actually returning them to their rightful owners, is it ok to buy one? Yes, probably, tho I find that line of questioning spurious and irrelevant. Let’s deal with real situations – there are plenty of them. I dealt with one in the original post.

I don’t think anyone is a fool for paying into the system at the point of a gun.

You offered no argument against accepting unemployment payments for me to rebut! I offered multiple arguments in favor of my position that you implicitly admit you are unable to rebut, since you choose to employ these bad faith tactics instead.

You have further misrepresented my position.

No more posts by you that contain lies or other bad faith tactics will be published here, bub. Scram.

You don’t smash the state by actively participating in its criminal activities. You only strengthen and legitimize it. The only damage done is to your personal integrity. And THAT is really unfortunate.

Blaming and whining about the state, the boogie man, or The Big Bad Wolf will not solve your problems. Neither will “joining” them because you feel you can’t “beat” them. There is ALWAYS a moral way to sidestep tyranny.

Living with the values of frugality, discipline, hard work, self-reliance, preparedness, and living by the Golden Rule are the bedrock necessary for the foundation of a stateless society and its hope for survival and prosperity. Unfortunately, the philosophy you expound represents that annoying, loose gravel, caught between our toes that inhibits that progress.

My initial response is completely in “good faith.” You just can’t offer a reasoned rebuttal. Best wishes.

I get a seasonal layoff from my job 4 months out of EVERY year. I ACCEPT NO UNEMPLOYMENT. Guess what? I get by. It’s not easy, but with careful planning and disciplined spending I manage to survive. It also motivates me to look into other opportunities. “No choice?” Total BS! I don’t need to become a thief to survive. “No choice but aggression?” More total BS! I and others like me prove you wrong every day.!

“A government subsidy for gold?” Where is that? Unless you mean its increased value because of state created inflation.

Morality is only “contextual” in situations involving temporary, immediate survival. Even then, the trespass or theft can later be remedied by restitution. Your example of nationalizing the food industry is a poor one. The state could nationalize EVERYTHING required for survival. Even then, there are alternatives, such as black markets. In this situation you may have no choice. You certainly have the choice of NOT accepting direct cash payments with money stolen from others. You just have to minimize as much as possible your participation in that theft, certainly not actively seek it out, as you suggest. And you CERTAINLY don’t participate in such theft while calling yourself a libertarian or anarchist. Hypocrisy does not win converts.

You’re using your objection to state aggression as a crutch to excuse and make up for your personal failings- failings that we ALL have, I might add.

Presumably he would rather take the funds his employer directs to the unemployment funds as direct salary. So he can spend it as he sees fit, including on membership in a mutual aid society, from which he can get free market unemployment insurance to replace the government scheme.

But meanwhile he is left with no choice. Accept the benefit government forced him to buy or go without (especially in this economy where government aggression has artificially constricted the job market).

In other words, when left with no choice by aggression, we are wiser to choose survival over de-contextualized purity.

For this same reason, I think it’s morally acceptable to comply with the tax man when he finally has you in his sights (as opposed to is just sending you forms) and is ready to confiscate your assets.

Are you against buying gold, given the government subsidy?

Everything is contextual, including right and wrong, so it is critically important that we take the context into account whenever judging morality.

Let’s say tomorrow, the government issues an edict nationalizing the food industry; i.e., food producers, food transport, food retail shops, gardens, farms, seeds … your pantry … all food and all means of producing it currently in existence.

Are you acting immorally if you eat?

How is collecting unemployment benefits NOT “aggression” or “endorsing aggression?” It certainly IS aggression when my employer is forced at the point of a gun to pay taxes that support such a program. By participating in such a program I am certainly endorsing such criminal activity.