Are taxes essentially the same thing as making Rob give to Jim?
PLEASE NOTE: I CHANGED THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD, TO CHANGE THE EMPHASIS OF THE THREAD.
(This is continued from the Obama FTW thread.)
The moral dilemma is this: Slim Jim is starving, while Robust Rob holds a fresh loaf of bread, his stomach full. Rob doesn't want to give Jim his bread. The question: should we make him?
If I'm understanding Giggan, he says no, we shouldn't. Jim doesn't have the right to Rob's bread. Rob has the moral obligation to give him some bread, but the bread is Rob's property, thus Rob has the right to do what he wants with it. If Rob doesn't give Jim some bread, he's a heartless mofo, but it's still within his rights.
If I were faced with this, I think I would make Rob give Jim the bread. The logic I would use is, which is the greater wrong? Infringing Rob's property rights, or Jim dying a needless death?
Now I suppose Giggan would say, by making Rob do this, I'm bringing the gun into the room. (Actually, I should probably stop supposing what Giggan would say, since I falsely assumed he adheres to Ron Paul's philosophy, which it turns out he doesn't.) If you don't understand what I mean by bringing the gun in the room, please read this, http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html which is a link Giggan supplied in another thread and which is a good read.
The question I pose to all of you: what would you do?
You know what would be a real mindfuck, though? What if Rob resisted, and the only way you'd get him to give up the bread would be to kill him? What then? One of them is going to die, either way. I'm not even sure what I would do in this case.
I like moral dilemmas, don't you?