You're referring to a policeman? Well, of course I agree. It is extortion, and they are being robbed. You said they "might" be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road -- but we wouldn't know that unless we asked them, would we. And asking one, or some, or even most, would not be the same as asking all.Consider the very similar case of a bandit stopping motorists on a public road and extorting $10 from them. They might be willing to pay a $10 toll to use the road, but even you are not stupid or dishonest enough to claim they aren't being robbed.
Ah, yes, licensing requirements for ordinary people to engage in commerce. A total racket.Or consider a long-established protection racketeer who charges businesses for access to the local customer base (if he is not paid, he doesn't harm the business's premises, just lets it be known in the neighborhood that no one is to patronize the business)
No, we have not established in EITHER of the above cases that they are "willing" (voluntarily, of their own free will, in that they would pay even if the option to not pay existed).They are willing to pay for it
, but they are definitely being robbed.
No, Roy, that's where you have it all fucked up. The theft, the extortion, is in being forced to pay. Period. Your attitude is like that of a classic racketeer, Roy. You think it's OK to force someone to pay, so long as you (to your satisfaction only) "provide value in return". Do you think a protection racketeer doesn't justify extortion by claiming that he is "providing value in return"?The theft is in their being forced to pay someone who is not providing value in return, as you know perfectly well.
And what about your loopy-stupid notion that A BANDIT is only going to take what merchants are "WILLING" to pay? What the fuck does that mean, "WILLING"? How do you know that they are willing to pay ANYONE -- let alone HIM? Not only do you have the concept of WILLING completely twisted, you have a fantasy notion of "benevolent bandits" that don't take absolutely everything they can possibly take when the opportunity presents itself.
You cannot give someone something, assign your own value to it, force someone to pay, and pretend it is not extortion. You cannot assume that since others are willing to pay a given amount for a thing, that everyone else must be "willing" to pay that same amount. That's nasty, Roy. Stinky, icky, nasty.A husband and wife stop at an average hotel. The advertised price is $100 a night, and they take a room. When they go to check out the next morning, the desk clerk hands them a bill for $350, along with a list of itemized charges. The husband explodes.
HUSBAND: All you can eat all-night buffet? We didn't eat anything here!
CLERK: Well, it was there if you wanted it.
HUSBAND: Olympic-sized pool, day spa and massage? We didn't use the pool or go anywhere near the spa!
CLERK: Well, it was there if you wanted it.
HUSBAND: Luxury conference center? We didn't use that either!
CLERK: Well, sir, it was there if you wanted it.
Livid, the man goes quiet, writes out a check and hands it to the manager.
"Sir," the manager says, "this check is only made out for $100."
"That's right," replies the man. "I deducted $200 for you having sex with my wife."
"I didn't have sex with your wife!" exclaims the manager.
"Well," the man replies, "it was there if you wanted it."
OR ANYONE ELSE (public or private). Not unless it was truly voluntary. Otherwise, there is no reason they should pay ANYONE, including the state if it behaves in the same way as a racketeer. States get no pass. The state becomes the ultimate protection racket when extortion is implemented -- the idea that ANY ENTITY (public or private, state or mafia-state) provides a service, has a monopoly on that service, assigns its own values to that service, and rationalizes force used to make others to pay for that monopolized service on the basis that "something was given in return".Yep. Just like the protection racketeer's victims. There is just no reason they should pay HIM.
I did. The answer is no to both, but unlike you, my answer is consistent by extension, across the board. It is the same whether it is a private bandit or a state bandit (and no, that is not using your circular reasoning as you apply it to landownership). A bandit is a bandit, and theft is theft in both cases. You are the only one who thinks that the state can license itself to be a bandit, and that somehow the nature of monopolistic theft, extortion and coercion become something else because it's Roy's nasty, despicable version of a state that is doing it. Meeza hatesa your version of gubmint, Roy.Now you answer them.
No amount of twisting, squirming, conflating, obfuscating dishonesty by you can alter the fact that government (A SERVANT ONLY) is NOT synonymous with the private individuals that make up a community, which individuals created both the state and all private land's value. It is, therefore, those private individuals who should rightly enjoy the rents thereof, while the state does not, and therefore rightly should not, EVER behave as a bandit, under Color of Collectivist Non-Reasoning.
The fact that others simply "value" (are willing to pay for) ANYTHING, including land, does not an entitlement to others make. Not for ANYONE, public or private, singular or collective. So take your merry band of would-be LVT parasite state bandits elsewhere, Roy.