Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

"Yes, it is coercion to prevent one person from taking something from another" But it is not an initiation. Come on. Are all yuo people telling that by trading for something I am initiating force by the very act of holding my property? There is no "Coerced Formal Property right system". Owning property does not equal Non-stop coercion.

Property rights are moral principles that affirm an individual's right to own and exchange what he owns with others. Yes, it is coercion to prevent one person from taking something from another, but taking is the form of coercion designed to be prevented. So in other words, an individual taking one thing from another is an initiation of coercion, while having laws that prevent such action are retaliating against the initial force. The force that is evil is the initiation of force.

yes... it is... it's even bigger bulls***t than global worming

There is nothing natural with property rights. Property rights are granted by the state trough coercion. Property rights is actually the government interfering in human relations. If you have natural skills, like the ability to obtain a position with a high market value, then the government is protecting your earnings. But by doing so the government is also preventing another human, for instance one with a great ability to fight, to use his natural skills to obtain what he can from you.

So what are you trying to say. Are you saying that in this current system all these people voting for taxation on themselves are not being benovolent? Well if we accept that premise then democracy must be the biggest lie ever told.

"If taxation is immoral because it's state coercion, then how can a state coerced property right system be morally right? Your are simply being incoherent." First, of all if the state protects a man's rightfully earned property they are NOT using coercion they are using a retalitory use of force. It is not an initiation of force it is a retaliation of force. Not Coercion.

"a man's rightfully earned property" Who gave that man those rights? Where does these rights come from? In reality this is coercion, because you are forcing that property right system upon others. Not that I object to property rights, but it is in fact coercion. And as such you have yet again failed to explain why it's more immoral to force someone to pay taxes than to force someone to accept a formal property right system.

"You are taking for granted that people will voluntary contribute just as much funds as they politically are voting to be collected trough coercion" Uh, yea...it would be complete hypocrisy to vote for benovolence but then not be benovolent yourself. "The Constitution of the United States cannot be amended by majority. It must be ratified by every State in the USA." And who elects the gov't of those states? Ah yeah that's right the MAJORITY. So therefore we are democracy.

"Uh, yea...it would be complete hypocrisy to vote for benovolence but then not be benovolent yourself." Firstly you can't say somebody who votes for benevolence is not benevolent. That's a contradiction. Secondly I've already argued that the willingness to vote for tax financing, and the willingness to contribute to voluntary charity, is two different situations involving different factors, and as such is not comparable. You really do have a problem dealing with arguments, don't you?

The Constitution of the United States cannot be amended by majority. It must be ratified by every State in the USA.