Positive rights are a mistake on the part of the person who complies

To threaten violence isn't really a crime... and so therefore to oblige another person's claim to positive rights is a choice made by the "victim".

It is a mistake to comply with someone who claims that they have a right to instruct your actions (that they have positive rights)... They don't have positive rights unless you have agreed (signed?) a contract...

It is not a crime for the State to request Income Tax because they are making a claim to positive rights which can only be substantiated with the threat of violence or by your complicity in the "Social Contract"... If you abide by the Social Contract then it makes sense for you to agree to pay Income Tax. If you reject the Social Contract, but continue to pay Income Tax, that is not the fault of the State since to threaten violence is not a crime (it is freedom of speech).

So, in neither case does Income Tax violate the Non-Aggression Principle (since we now exclude the threat of violence from the definition, only actual violence).

So for that reason positive rights ("Give me your money or I will kill you") are not supported, but neither are they a crime... They are a mistake on the part of the person who complies. If someone threatens violence, the response should be to ignore their requests but to make their statement known to as many other people as you think is required to offer you protection... so that there is no possibility that they might commit the crime threatened.

Governments use fear to extract value from their populace... we pay because we are scared.


Thursday 16 April 2009