Massoud’s Reply to Notes on Style

Bob Capozzi asks of me in this blog entry, “Are “individualism and self-reliance” the only path toward liberty?” Yes, and necessarily so too. I believe that communities must govern themselves on a voluntary basis. When a state entity with full police powers to coerce exists, governance stops being voluntary. You can pay what tax or follow what laws they demand of you or go to jail. And sometimes even worse consequences can ensue as well.

What claim do people in other regions of the nation or world have on my life, liberty, property, or income? If you think they do have such a claim Bob please say what it is and why. I know you think this is “atomistic”, but whether it is or not is irrelevant to my argument.

Different parts of America do in fact have different political cultures and this can be empirically shown.

The concept of a national community is a myth. Local people have local concerns and they should be the ones who decide how they’re addressed. That’s where I come down. People in New York have no right to decide for me that gun laws appropriate for Brooklyn, NY are also appropriate for Brooklyn, MI. The people of Boston, MA do not have the right to decide what New Boston, MI’s sign ordinance height requirements should be either. And people in Michigan don’t have a right to tell New Yorkers or Bostonians what the speed limit is or what their tabacco tax ought to be. Atomistic or not, this seems fair to me.

If the president, governor, mayor, or some other government bigshot “volunteers” some portion of my income to rebuild New Orleans (“Better than before” too!), cure AIDS in Africa, defend Taiwan, or invade Iraq what choice or say do I have? What recourse is available to me? I can openly refuse to pay and go to prison or evade the levee and always worry of being found out and prosecuted. This is unjust and morally wrong.

--Ali H. Massoud