[pnathan]

> involves taking money from people without their consent (taxes), whereas charity doesn't

This argument seems to be novel from the late 1800s. Before then, it seems to have been understood that the political system ran on taxes. It beggars the imagination that modern Americans seem to believe the old anarchist saw that cooperation and working with society via the ancient tradition of taxation is theft.

[brucephillips]

I'm not sure what you mean by "understood". Everyone has always understood that the government works on taxes. But if you mean "agreed with", that's certainly not the case. The line between taxes and theft in the middle ages, for instance, was extremely blurry.

[lmm]

> This argument seems to be novel from the late 1800s. Before then, it seems to have been understood that the political system ran on taxes.

Before then the political system openly ran on violent coercion.

[microcolonel]

It was also "understood" not long ago that the women of the villages you ransacked would become your property, that the king could do approximately whatever he wanted, that approximately all your kids would die seemingly out of nowhere before the age of five.

That tyranny has been "understood" is not a justification for the deliberate resurgence of tyranny. That you could take even more money from the public to fund your pet project is of no importance to the question of whether it is right or wrong to do so.

> This argument seems to be novel from the late 1800s.

Have you heard of the USA? It's been constituted since 1788, and it was more or less understood that the government wouldn't be getting involved in this sort of thing. If I'm not mistaken, 1788 is before the late 1800s.

[fsloth]

"it was more or less understood that the government wouldn't be getting involved in this sort of thing."

I propose you use some other rethorical device to back your argument. it was also understood back then that government would not ban slavery and that only people with property and penises could vote.