> "the power to tax is the power to destroy". I'd need to see the context, but this seems even more ridiculous than calling tax theft. Taxation just moves thin

> "the power to tax is the power to destroy". I'd need to see the context, but this seems even more ridiculous than calling tax theft. Taxation just moves things around, it doesn't destroy anything. (It might cause destruction due to inefficiency, but that's a separate argument.) >Property rights aren't a consequence of non-aggression, so much as non-aggression is scoped by the extent of property rights. Well this is more consistent, but I still consider that a fairly ridiculous definition of aggression. Most people would consider aggression to mean actual violence (or threats thereof) and nothing else. Using resources outside the constraints of society's property system (i.e. theft) might be considered immoral, but I wouldn't call that aggression. Defining aggression to include theft just seems like a rhetorical trick to avoid explaining the immorality of theft itself (if it's called aggression it must be bad right?)