I had no hand in the theft of lands before my time, I can only live a moral life of my own since it is the only one rightfully under my control.
I quite agree. That's why I don't worry about it. I just don't live under an illusion that I don't benefit from "receiving stolen goods."
What would you have us do my friend? Levitate and fly our way across this land? If that were possible I would certainly do so and deny the extra support they get from the tolls.
Well it is possible, just difficult. Get an ultralight (non-licensed) aircraft and some off-road (non-taxed) gas.... As much fun as that would be, I won't bother because I don't mind paying gas taxes for the roads I use.
Are you telling me you've never heard of alternative ways of managing roads? They do not have to be government owned any more than our money must be the exclusive domain of government.
No, I've never heard of alternative ways of managing roads - at least until after the government uses its muscle to seize the lands they're built on. It kind of reminds me of the new Denver ball stadium. They bought all the land to build it, until one guy held out (for a lot of money) with one small piece of land near home plate. Then they brought in the big guns of government to seize it and compensate the former owner for a much smaller price. What would "libertarian" roads look like, if they had to divert around every patch of ground that a recalcitrant owner refused to sell?
BTW, in Wyoming, the government grants private interests the right to use eminent domain. Check out http://www.wyominglandowners.org/help/index.php. You'll see that if a commercial interest needs your land to make their business interest go, they can take with the help of the government. Wyoming is a great place to live, but it isn't perfect.
Unless I am misreading you Chris, you seem to be catching a whiff of hypocrisy where none exists.
Well, no, I won't go that far. It isn't hypocrisy. Perhaps it's not thinking through the matter all the way. Or maybe you've thought it through so much farther than I have that you've attained a new state of enlightenment.
The entire six thousand year history has been one huge campaign for and against personal liberty. Speaking only for myself I see no benefit derived from the institution of the state that could not be better provided and cheaper by the open market. Freedom does not frighten me and I'm not ashamed to admit I've made mistakes.
Freedom doesn't frighten me, and neither does the prospect of a properly limited government. Let's define terms here - I mean government that has the right to use force for certain strictly defined (and limited) goals. For example, executing a murderer (after due process, of course). Or seizing land for certain purposes (like straight roads) after full public discourse, consideration of alternatives, and full just compensation (for the land and the inconvenience).
Finally, some of us are awakening to different possibilities and following a principle like non aggression (in this case, refusing to accept stolen goods) in never an incorrect position to take.
You mean "refusing to accept stolen good as long as it's not too inconvenient," don't you? Or do you accept the fact that you must pay tax when you buy gas for your vehicle, so you might as well drive on the roads? (I do.) I see no difference in deciding that I paid in to Social Security, so I might as well take it. And I'll take energy credits for my home improvements, etc.
Would I vote to eliminate Social Security? Yes I would. But I would expect the government to print up some more FRNs and reimburse me for what I put in, less what I took out. That shouldn't bother most libertarians. They would only pay me in FRNs, not real money like gold.
So obviously we disagree in philosophy, by a good bit. But what of tactics? Do you expect your tactic of minimal tax payments with refusal to accept government money to work well? I think "drain the swamp" - a variation of "bring it all down" - will work better.
Chris