Paidion wrote:If a person were elected by those others in order to benefit them, and if he taxed them in order to fulfill his obligation to them, then he wouldn't be a thief.
If a person pays for some or good or service and does so on a voluntarily basis, because he values that good or service more than the sum of money that he paid to receive it, then this is not theft. I do not object to a ruler, or any one else, carrying this out. My objection is that the payment for those services may not be forcibly taken by the State. If anyone wishes not to pay for the benefits, because he does not value the the benefits more than the payments, then he ought to be exempted from being forced to pay for what he does not want. To take from such men is theft. Do you agree or disagree?
Paidion wrote:Now I have a question for you. If a Libertarian Government were elected, would they actually govern? Or would they simply declare that all people were on his own, to struggle along as they may, make their own roads, look after the poor (if they felt like it), pay for their own medical needs (even if it bankrupted them), etc.
A libertarian, if elected, would abolish the parts of the government he sees as unnecessary. If he consistently applies the non-aggression principle (many libertarians do not) then he would eventually eliminate all of it.
Your concerns assume that the State is a structure which provides for a superior efficiency in the provision of goods and services than a competitive market. The nature of a socialist program is that it takes from productive people in order to give benefits to those who are less productive, or not productive at all. This discourages people from being productive and encourages people to be less productive, and so overall the amount of goods and services produced in a socialist system will be less than otherwise would have been in a free market. Therefore, goods and services would be more plentiful and affordable in a free market. It is pejorative and not accurate to state that people will struggle along sans various government provisions. In a free market men's needs are met through the products that private enterprise creates. In this sense each person is not on his own, but each person must either pay his own way or rely upon voluntary charity.
It is never, in my opinion, justified to take one persons property because another person really needs it. Men ought to be free to give to the poor only if they feel like it. They should not be compelled to give. If a person wishes to secure himself against extreme hardship due to medical needs or other disasters,, then of course he may purchase an insurance policy to avail himself of such protections.
