My friend asked me to comment on this article, and i find some raeson to share my thots:

> "If production gives to the producer the right to exclusive possession and> enjoyment, there can rightfully be no exclusive possession and enjoyment of> anything not the production of labor; for the right to the produce of labor> cannot be enjoyed without the right to the free use of the opportunities> offered by nature. To admit the right of property in gifts of nature is to> deny the right of property in the produce of labor. When nonproducers can> claim a portion of the wealth created by producers, the right of the> producers to the fruits of their labor is to that extent denied.>>> "Taxation, like slavery, is wrong because it seizes the fruits of someone> else's labor without their permission. It makes no difference whether the> tax collector is a government or a land holder; taxation is still wrong.> Any institution that places a ny portion of the product of labor and/or> capital into the hands of nonproducers is the moral equivalent of taxation.> Public taxation is immoral and private taxation, recognized as such or not,> is equally corrupt.>>> "Natural resources are not the fruits of human effort; capital is. Capital> is not essential for human life; natural resources are. Natural resources> are fixed in supply; capital is not. Capital holdings do not penalize or> hamper the private producti on of wealth; natural resource holdings do. The> just ownership of capital is demonstrable by tracing its origin in> production; ownership of natural resources is demonstrable only by the> say-so of the current government.>>

Here is my two-cent's worth:

Pre, hebigat nito ah. Am just a sick soul trying to eke out my day to daysubsitence in a jail doubling as a bankers' bank hehehheheh......Anyway, the central thesis here is what a libertarian make. If libertarian means the pursuit of individual happiness, per se, then the author is libertarian.But if libertarian means the pursuit of individual happiness towards the greater goal of collective happiness then he may not be. I tend to incline on thelatter, for libertarianism is also a function of equity and fraternity --remember the motto of the famous French revolution that toppled the monarchy (well what transpired after the revolution is another story, or history).Taxation by its nature is designed to make public goods public, as econ 151teaches. Who would want to produce non profitable activities, but have highpublic externalities than the government -- and where it can get its revenues.Bad governments that embezzle money from taxes does not make this irrelavant --what is irrelevant and of question is the behaviour of that government, not theconcept of taxation itself. If the community can be designed in a schumpeteriansetting, where the government will act like board of directors (assume theprinciapl agent dillema is already eradicated), then in a way natural resourcescan be freed from ownership and public and private sector may be allowed tocompete for those. Again, who will be there to look after the masa?