FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 5, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Define 'stealing' Winding up an ongoing but perhaps instructive debate with e-mail correspondent J.P., I had offered: "The notion that it's all right to steal at gunpoint 'some modest amount, as long it serves a legitimate public need' ignores the simple moral truth that the end cannot be allowed to justify the means." J.P. responded: "Define steal. If you are benefiting from having a court and national defense system, and pay nothing for its upkeep, then you would be stealing. OK -- one final time: # # # Hi, J.P. -- Probably the one place where we are still furthest apart is the definition of "theft." To me, it merely has to do with voluntarism, versus levying something under the threat of force. None of my federal taxes are paid voluntarily. I allow them to be "withheld" from my paycheck because if I tell my employer I won't work here any longer unless he stops "withholding," I'll be out of a job. Likewise, any other "compliance" I grant the federals is because they have repeatedly demonstrated they will seize (start ital)all(end ital) of my paycheck, and all of my bank accounts (even if I find myself unemployed, and have so notified them), if I do not "comply" -- all this without so much as a signed court order. Under those conditions -- even if I didn't know how wasteful, oppressive and counterproductive most of their schemes really are -- what would I care to how "noble" a purpose the federals assure me some of my moneys will be put? Try approaching someone taking money out of her ATM. Assure her that at least 60 percent of the money you're seizing from her at gunpoint will be used to buy medicines for the poor. Proceed to (start ital)buy(end ital) medicines for the poor with 60 percent of her money, and keep careful documentation. When you're identified from the ATM camera tape and arrested, show the police your evidence that most of the money went to "a noble purpose," while the rest merely covered your "operating overhead." Thus, you committed no "theft," and they'll let you go without prosecution. Right? I don't think so. Your underlying premise is that "government" can properly do things which would be crimes if they were done by individuals, as long as they're "for the greater good of the many." But that one concession leads, in the end, to all the evils of the police state. On the other hand, you puzzle me with the assertion: "If you are benefiting from having a court and national defense system, and pay nothing for its upkeep, then you would be stealing." Even if it weren't for the fact that more and more of these "Defense" and "court" dollars go to enslave and murder American citizens who have harmed no one -- whose only "offense" is refusal to kneel before their federal masters -- I still wouldn't follow this. If a wealthy philanthropist builds a free public library, and I use it, am I "stealing?" After all, I have "benefited from it without paying for its upkeep." If a direct-mail scam artist mails me some gimcrack plastic camera I never ordered, and then tries to bill me $29.95 for "shipping and handling," do I have to pay? I don't think so. Yet under your theory, he would be allowed to seize from my bank account or paycheck any amount by which he could demonstrate I had "benefited" from his unsolicited "gift" ... couldn't he? Unless (again) government has a right to do things which would be crimes if undertaken by mortal men. In which case I ask again, since we the citizens cannot possibly "delegate" to the government rights or powers which we never possessed, where does government claim to derive the right or power to do these immoral things? From the same place the invading bandit chieftain (or, perhaps, Union bluebelly?) gets his "right" to rape your daughter and then ransom her back to you for half your wealth? At the point of his bayonet, and nowhere else? Your only answer seems to be, "The government has to do these things, because we're not sure we could find enough funds, otherwise." Imagine a bank robber patiently explaining to you: "I have certain absolute necessities, such as keeping my family fed, and buying ammunition and gas for the car. In the past, the only reliable way I've found to meet these requirements is bank robberies. Now, if you want me to reform my bank robbery system, perhaps taking a larger share from the larger, richer banks, I'll be happy to negotiate some reasonable reforms. "But heavens, you can't expect me to take the risk of giving up bank robbing entirely, on the strength of this theory that 'Somehow, I could probably keep my family fed by taking some kind of a steady job.' Don't I see panhandlers on the street every day? Aren't those people who tried your pie-in-the-sky, 'non-coercive' way of 'earning' enough money, and failed? I'd look a fine figure, standing at my child's grave, explaining 'I HOPED you wouldn't starve if I gave up bank-robbing. I thought it MIGHT work.' In fact, no single bank robber of my acquaintance has ever given up the trade voluntarily. Surely SOMEONE would have done so, in all these years, if your way could be made to work, don't you think?" If a private citizen told you this, you would doubtless judge him an incurable sociopath, and hope to see him shot down or caged before he could terrorize and kill too many more innocent bank tellers and patrons. But when a group of men who call themselves "the government" say this same thing, you tell me they're being sensible and prudent. Others -- whether singly or in organized groups -- can volunteer to do things which benefit me, without my permission. Presumably, they figured the benefits to them would justify their proceeding, even without my agreeing to help them. They have (start ital)no(end ital) moral right to then turn around and bill me for a share of a thing they have done without seeking my voluntary help and permission in advance (what would be the proper charge for my taking aesthetic pleasure in someone else's architecturally pleasing building, I wonder?) under the theory: "You benefited, so you have to pay." They can only extract such a non-voluntary payment from me by force or the threat of force ... which is theft. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed."