[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you accept this, the 'extreme' notion of property rights typically held by ACists starts to break down. Because it can by claimed by similar reasoning that it's virtuous to "steal" from (i.e. tax) people in order to provide sick children with medical care etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree--for one thing, people are never really compensated for money taken via taxation. <font color="red"> yes, they are </font> Second, one would have to provide an argument--'slippery slope' isn't really an argument. In general, state programs like taxation couldn't be justified by the line of reasoning presented because they represent systematic oppression and exploitation, <font color="red"> no they dont </font> which doesn't seem acceptable even in serious circumstances (part of what makes stealing seem *possibly* acceptable when feeding your starving kid is that it is kind of an emergency--kid needs food or he/she will get sick, starve, etc). This can never really be the case when we're talking about systematic theft and violence, in part because it is inherently systematic.

Again, this really doesn't undercut the AC notion of property rights, since 'rights' delineate cases where obligations can be legitimately enforced with violence. If I steal from you to feed my kid, even if I have good moral reasons and I beleive I'm acting virtuously, you still are entitled to compensation because that food was *yours* and my emergency situation doesn't negate your rights (it just changes how a person ought to act--to take a more emergency-like example, I might steal your car if I thought it was the only way to get a bleeding man to the hospital in time. but my good intentions and virtuous behavior don't negate the fact that its *your* car, and if I do any damage to it I, or perhaps the injured person, would owe you compensation).

[/ QUOTE ]