[zyxley]

You seem to be doing that extreme-libertarian thing where you call taxes "robbery" while ignoring the negative economic effects of the general lack of safety nets in the US.

You may want to read up on the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" first.

[zeveb]

> You seem to be doing that extreme-libertarian thing where you call taxes "robbery" while ignoring the negative economic effects of the general lack of safety nets in the US.

I don't know what else you would call threatening people with deadly force unless they give the threatener money, other than 'robbery.'

You'll note that I didn't say that taxes aren't necessary: they are. They are, in fact, almost the textbook definition of a necessary evil: we must have them, and they are evil. We don't live in a perfect world.

What concerns me is that we have already raised the economic footprint of the State far beyond what is necessary, and that it is in fact deadweight holding us all back — to include the poor, whose ultimate interests are served not by dragging down the rich, but by being lifted up.

[occamrazor]

You walk into a store, take an apple and walk out of the door without paying. The police stop you and threaten you to forcefully deprive you of your freedom, unless you give money to the shop owner.

Would you call this robbery too? It seems to fit your definition.

[pitaj]

No. He would say that the stealing is the initiation of force so use of force in retaliation is justified.

[occamrazor]

Yes, but no violence, or even force, is used by the thief in this example.