"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:28:14 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

It's the threat of jail and the use of force I
oppose....

But you are in favor of this threat when it comes to private
contracts. Hence you must acknowledge the juridical basis of all
contracts. Now this means that all contracts are really the creation
of the state, so they can be defined by the state in different ways,
including a requirement of paying the state some portion of the value
of the contract for its services.

At the state level, it seems reasonable. At least only the people needing
the service are paying for the service.

Indeed this has always been true of
all forms of property rights--that they are defined by the state and
have been subject to various restrictions and qualifications.

I'm opposed to taxes on property, since that means you don't really own it.

The
conception of property you are using has never actually existed
anywhere and is a purely ideological construct, hence it cannot really
serve to define taxation as theft.

See above. If you have to pay a tax on your property forever, you never can
own it.