non aggression principle & politics

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It has the consent of the governed. It doesn't require any particular person's consent. It doesn't require your consent at all. It requires a large majority agreeing that the elected government is actually the valid government. That the police's job is to police them, that the courts determine how the law is applied, that elections are how we determine who's in charge.

It does not have the consent of the governed. I've discussed in another thread that the income tax amendment is blatantly unconstitutional and was fraudulently ratified without the consent of the governed. Saying that people consent to it because they do it out of fear of government retaliation is like saying a person being robbed at the point of a gun consented to give you his money. He was coerced under the threat of violence to comply. If this threat were removed, nobody would pay.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There are a few people in New Orleans tonight who believe that the police do not police them. These people are called "looters". The vast majority expects that the police do police them. In fact they *demand* it and are incredulous when it is not present. This is consent of the governed in action.

This is a nice strawman you've setup, but completely irrelevant. The valid role of government includes protecting people from others and from each other when it comes to crime. This does not need to be funded by income taxes. 100% of the valid functions (Constitutional) of government can be funded without raising any taxes and without collecting a penny of income tax. We'd have firefighters, policemen, judges, courts, a military, etc. without a penny of income tax if we got rid of the unconstitutional parts of government.