The following post is by guest-author Nathan DeJonge.

Logically speaking, there are certain problems inherent in the acceptance of the State, which problems cannot be resolved without discarding several notions associated with the nature of the State.

Because I have no moral or philosophical right to use your vehicle, I do not have the right to tell my friends that they may use your vehicle. One cannot delegate to another a right that they themselves do not have. Because I have no right to chop the tree in your front yard down, I do not have the ability to give my friends the right to chop the tree in your front yard down.

thinking-statue-philosophy1-360x225

Similarly, I do not have the right to forcibly take your money. I do not have the right to imprison or shoot you if you resist this theft. So how, then, can I give politicians the right to do the same? It is commonly held that if 51% of a population (or that if 51% of the voters in the population) say and believe that it is moral to extort someone in this manner, then it really is moral and acceptable to do so through the use of politicians. This is labeled taxation, but the mob’s blessing does not make that which is unethical into that which is ethical. That which is wrong for the individual is also wrong for the majority, as the majority is comprised of individuals – none of which may allocate a right that they themselves do not have.

When one is born within a particular geographical area, he is told he must tolerate rules created by groups of individuals that claim that they have the ability to delegate rights that they themselves do not possess. This, of course, is absurd. If individuals have the ability to delegate rights that they themselves are not in possession of, any criminal need only have a friend to excuse a murder by saying, “that’s ok, I said he could kill that person.” Any pyromaniac needs only an acquaintance to excuse the destruction of another’s property by saying, “calm down, I gave him permission.” Any thief needs only one (or six) of the ten community members to say “it’s ok, I (or we) gave him permission to steal those items.”

This is the core of taxation.  To justify the violence and threats of violence inherent to the tax system, the blind bleat, “It’s the law!  The lawmakers (never mind that they themselves do not have the right) have received permission from a majority (never mind that none of the individuals comprising the majority have the right) to take your money by force to allocate for the common good!”

Simply put, for a contract to be at all valid on any level, all parties must agree to its terms. This is the nature of a contract. By remaining in one’s birthplace, one does not give consent to be violated by those who would claim they have been granted rights that simply cannot be granted. Holding such a belief would justify every act of government violence, theft, torture, etc. that has ever taken place. Black Americans’ segregation and forced usage of inferior facilities, schools, etc. would be justified. Mao’s Great Leap Forward that led to the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese would be justified. The fining and/or imprisonment of individuals who possess a large soda in New York City would be justified.

Re-examine that which you have been lead to believe; consider that which has been brought to you in this appeal. Consider the possibility that it is antithetical to support government as a free, logically consistent, non-violent individual.