We can help people if we want but we have no right to insist on their help or to force others to be charitable

There is no reason to force someone to do something they do not want to do, or to prevent them from doing something that harms no one but themselves. If people do not want to pay taxes, there is no reason to force them.

An action cannot be criminal if we must be informed of our obligations in advance. Theft is still a crime even if we do not realise that it is wrong. Then, failure to perform positive actions cannot be a crime because, unless we know about it we cannot be expected to comply. It cannot be a crime if ignorance, or forgetfulness is a viable excuse. It doesn't matter if we forget that assault is against the law, it remains harmful.

The reasons against natural law crimes are based in reality, it would be to deny reality to fail to see that other people do not want to be the victim of crime. But it is not denying reality to be ignorant of the reasons to be obliged to make a positive act, in this case the criminal is the accuser who relies upon myth.

Since resources are sufficient there is no need for aggression

It is an inconsistent position to be against communism and yet allow some form of Government. If some coercion is acceptable, even useful, then there is no limit on how much taxes are due. If some tax is good then more would be better. If slavery is not pleasant then there is no reason to tolerate even a small amount of it; there is no logic in not opposing all tyranny.

It is better to have the right to vote than outright dictatorship

A Government that will show restraint is one that will allow more liberties than the authoritarian alternative.

If there is no Government, it is only from (a) voluntary organisation that we would fear reprisals for aggressive acts, we would be free in the most complete sense.

There is no reason to participate in the political process, other than to oppose it. The Government are no more important than any other person, their popularity makes no material difference to their legitimacy. The fact that the Government uses coercion to gain wealth is no more legitimate than if a private organisation did so. There is no reason why the Government would logically permit people to vote. The Government is different from other coercive organisations in that they allow a vote, it would be even more illegitimate not to be allowed to vote. The tyranny would be worse without a vote.

It is dangerous if people confuse innocent actions for aggression

There is no reason that taxation should be permitted. Taxation is aggressive and harmful, if we want to live in a prosperous community then (to allow) taxation is not a good idea.

It is a crime to run a protection racket, there is no important difference when the Government collects taxes. In the case of someone who pays for a contract to be taken out on someone else's life, not only is the person who is hired guilty, but also the instigator. If we can assume there is a market value on crime, then to pay for it creates harm where there would be none otherwise; it is not only the person who does the physical harm who is in the wrong. Even wanting someone dead (particularly if the person has done no crime) is a bad state of affairs.

If people are blind to aggression they are a dangerous person to have around, since we might assume they are not so impaired. If people confuse aggression for defence, and think innocent people are criminals then they are even more dangerous; it is likely that such people will take pleasure in crimes, just as normally people will take pleasure in seeing justice.

Failure to pay taxes is not a crime

There is no need to make people pay taxes, or do anything, all of the services currently provided by the State; hospitals, a police service, would be provided by the voluntary and commercial sectors. Taxes are unnecessary.

People will perform only the minimum required contribution if they are being coerced, there is no incentive, with taxes, for them to produce above what is required. With 'progressive' taxes people must work more and more but their taxes are still not paid in full.

People will stop working if there is no incentive to produce.

If people are helpful and charitable then there is no need to coerce them into helping the State, as they are doing plenty of good already. If they are doing bad they can be locked up, if they are doing nothing (then) there is no reason why they should be forced to pay taxes. There is no reason to make another person do anything, there is nothing wrong with not paying taxes.

The individual has a right to be free of aggression from the group

It's more important not to hurt people than to have public services. If, to get something you (we) want, we must necessarily hurt other people then it is better that we do not have what we want. There is no situation in a civilised community that we would not prefer to avoid the harm of violence than to get the reward. We are not civilised if we are prepared to be aggressive to get what we want. It matters if the individual disagrees with the tribe.

The majority are wrong if they are aggressive, it is right to respect the smallest minority; the individual. People who advocate forced collectivism have no respect for the individual.

It is a good idea to prevent aggression if possible

Aggression is a sign of untested beliefs. If we have no prejudices against others then there is no reason to be aggressive, since we can assume that others are rational and mean us no harm.

In a rational society we can assume that we will not be attacked. The belief in (a priori) immorality is what often leads to aggression. Everyone is good unless they have done something which contradicts this fact. Since most people are innocent and want to be left alone, it is not appropriate that to vote should be a positive act. By default, the individual should be free of aggression. Being attacked should not be the default, it should only be when a crime has been shown that force is legitimate. The failure to have voted for a peaceful political party is not a crime. If other people have voted for a crime this does not absolve it.

Taxation is aggressive no matter how many of the population select a party that approves of it. Failure to resist forced collectivism is immoral because it enables the removal of choice from the individual. It is good to resist aggression.

For some people bank credit is a form of money and has value

Only an institution with a banking licence is able to help you pay your taxes, no other private institution is able to do this. We can take out a 'loan' from the bank and have our tax debt deferred to a later date, plus interest. Because the Government is willing to accept this debt it has value; other people will buy it, in exchange for goods and services. Owning bank credit means that we are better able to pay our taxes in the future, it removes a debt that we have, it is not valuable in what might be called an objective sense, only because without it we might be put in gaol. An analogy might be with medicine, we value it when we are ill, but on most other occasions it has little value to us.

The same is true with cash; it has no intrinsic value, especially now that the link to gold has been removed and so it is only valuable because without we are unable to pay our taxes. If not for the legal ability of the Government to be aggressive, cash would be worthless.

People who do not question the legitimacy of this type of aggression will work hard to earn cash so that they can pay their taxes, or for some other reason. This type of person is visible and easy to collect taxes from, they will value cash highly and it is partly for the reason that they value cash that they behave in this manner.

There is no reason why people who want cash would not want bank credit. For some people, bank credit is a form of money.

There is no purpose to aggression

There is no a priori reason to be violent if there are sufficient resources in the world. Being violent in these circumstances is needless and wasteful of human life. If there is no purpose to violence then it is invalid since it creates harm. Hurting someone else is not reasonable because being alive (or dead) is a choice for us each to make. There is no reason to desire the death of another person, except perhaps if they are a threat and a danger. It is good that other people are alive, even if they are annoying occasionally because it makes life more interesting and more of a challenge.

We learn from being irritated.

An entity is part of the Government if it is able to cause inflation

An entity which is able to cause inflation and increase the money supply should not, rightly, be described as a private entity. If an organisation is able to dilute the purchasing power of the currency then they are part of the State and must be regarded as such.

The Government should not be allowed to collect taxes

If we have not done a crime then we should (there is no reason that we should not) be free to make our own choices. There is nothing we should (positively, assertively) do, only things we should not. If things (actions) are not ruled out for their being aggressive then we are entitled to do them, if we wish.

We are free to do anything which is not a crime. Even if someone votes for it, it's still not acceptable for taxes to be collected; crimes are determined by their nature, not their popularity. Collecting taxes is not an allowed activity, as it denies choice and is aggressive. It's not a good idea to force people to pay for things because there is less incentive to provide a good service and they might get a better arrangement, for the price, elsewhere.

The free market is better.

Aggression is the use of force which is not justified and not defensive

The Government does not solve problems; it creates them.

Aggression always causes more problems (negative externalities) than it solves. Using violence to make (or prevent) a person from engaging in a particular action or behaviour, even with the intention to do good, will cause harm because the underlying motivation for the act has not gone away. The best way to prevent harm is to allow people to defend themselves in the most efficient manner.

Using violence creates a problem for the object (victim) and (by definition, it is not chosen) does not provide anything of objective value. Something which is undesirable for the individual cannot be good for the group, unless the person is a criminal, so then unless the citizens are by default criminal, which they are not, then Government aggression is damaging. A solution that is unwanted cannot be a solution. Something that is not chosen is bad in all cases, unless the victim is (or has been) a criminal.