Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (6303)	12/7/2005 11:48:37 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 542168

Hey, this isn't harsh. It's just debating. I didn't think it harsh. Certainly it wasn't harsh by SI standards. Rather I found it less than helpful, less than receptive. I don't think that positing dichotomies is helpful because of how easily discussions spiral down from that. Of course, I always think the objective of discussion is understanding. Others may differ.

To: JohnM who wrote (6303)	12/10/2005 3:55:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542168

As you may know, however, there is a principled position in political theory which says, as Tim does, that only a "watchman" state can be considered legitimate. Tim might have been defending that. Thus, my response was intended to draw him out in that direction as well. I would say that a minarchist "watchman" state would certainly extort much less and only extort where the requirement and justification for it is strongest. You wouldn't see me complaining about the scope of the government or the tax burden. I probably would not go around calling it extortion, but it still would be. I don't think it could avoid taxation. It would still be a government taking money by force or threat of force. Unless you can get the force out of it I don't think that it can be said that it is in no way extortion. Tim