>>>>Aha, so you do favor force and coercion, but only for the things you agree with in principle.<<<<

? What are you referring to?

>>>>Taxation isn't theft if you use public roads, public transportation, other infrastructure, fire departments and those "heroes in blue" you love to disparage.<<<<<

Why isn't it? What is yourt definition of theft? Do you have one? Or do you simply decide arbitrarily that stealing for the things you want others to pay for is not theft?

>>>>>And btw, the military adventurism - with over 1 million dead Iraqis - is now to the tune of trillions. Where are the social programs that come close to those figures? That support Boeing and Raytheon and other "defense" contractors?<<<<<

So your definition of theft depends upon amount stolen and the purposes for which it is stolen? The ends (ends YOU favor) justify the means? What makes YOUR ends better than say, Cheneys? Please articulate your definition of theft. I am not trying to pick on you ("Aha"!!..???), I want to understand why you think stealing is not stealing if government does it for the ends you favor.

>>>>>Quote:
Nope. The wronged party can deal with the drivers insurance co. or the perpetrator can be shunned and refused trade. Life can become very hard, very fast.XXXXXXX
If the injured party were dead, his problems would be over. Your own might not be, relying as you do on the market and insurance companies to solve all problems - the ones God doesn't take care of.<<<<<

?? I'm not sure what you are referring to. The role of insurance would simply be a type of guarantee of a standard of behavior...or financial restitution for loss suffered by others for our transgressions/mistakes. This seems to freak you out. This makes no sense as under the current system there is little restitution for wronged parties, other than INSURANCE. People are fed into the criminal justice industry, jailed, lives ruined, fines paid, not to victims, but to the state. People would have the right to restrict their associations and trade to insured people, people would have the option to not be insured and run the risk of finding trade difficult. For example, what would be so wrong with a young person who caused a death in a car accident to contract with the family of the deceased to work in some capacity for a length of time as restitution? There would be only social pressure providing incentive for this, the person might find others unwilling to trade or socialize with him unless he does behave in a manner of responsibility. This is where smaller, more homogeneous communities would be of value. If the individual left without restituting (?), people in a new community might require some kind of recommendation or insurance,guarantee of a standard of behavior before trading or socializing.

My definition of theft is taking something from someone that doesn't belong to you. Get it?

As explained above, I do not view taxation as theft because people earn a living in society based on societal mechanisms, not strictly market mechanisms (unless you're von Hayek in Chile), and people have an obligation to support the common ground that allows societies to function.

>>>>My definition of theft is taking something from someone that doesn't belong to you. Get it?<<<<

Then by your own definition, taxation is theft.

>>>>>As explained above, I do not view taxation as theft because people earn a living in society based on societal mechanisms, not strictly market mechanisms (unless you're von Hayek in Chile), and people have an obligation to support the common ground that allows societies to function.<<<<<

No, what you are saying is that you think some people should be allowed to steal to finance YOUR ideas...and have decreed that THIS is "not theft".

Got it?