|
My
father used his trump card in one of our recent political debates.
That is, he asked me why I did not just leave if I disliked Unfortunately,
this argument is all too prevalent in discussions with state lovers.
When the state lovers are backed into a corner with no other
arguments to defend their views, just as my father, they often resort to
the tried and true “love it or leave it” argument. To
refute this supposed untouchable statement, a thorough analysis of it is
in order. Let
us start with the term If,
on the other hand, As
an aside, this discussion regarding the definition of Returning
to our main analysis, assume, then, that If
I have a right to own property, including real property (land), then I
have a right to exclude others from such property.
This right to exclude includes the right to exclude the federal
government and it agents. If
I truly own my land, then I have the right to tell the federal
government to stick its laws where the sun doesn’t shine, because the
land is mine and I can conduct myself on it as I please.
If anyone should be leaving, then, it should be the federal
government. I am rightly
located on my land, while it is a trespasser.
When the state lovers tell me to leave, they must assume, then,
that the federal government has a territorial monopoly on all of the
property located within the The
state lovers must also assume that I do not have a right to be free from
physical aggression and threats of physical aggression.
If I had a right to freedom from such aggression, then I could
tell the tax collector to go to hell anytime he came knocking at my
door. This, of course, is
not an option allowed by the state lovers.
If I refuse to pay my taxes, the federal government will come to
arrest me. If I resist
arrest, government agents will shoot me.
So the state lovers are telling me to love being robbed at
gunpoint or leave. Nice
guys, these state lovers. In conclusion, the only way that the state lovers’ “love it or leave it” argument holds up is if they concede that (1) America stands for a tyrannical federal government, (2) that no one has the right to own property, and (3) that everyone must be subject to threats of physical aggression. Seems like a very bleak place to live if you ask me. M. Leo Baker recently graduated from a well know law school and is planning on practicing corporate law. When he is not facilitating hostile take-overs, he will be promoting market anarchism.
|