On the Question of
'Forced Servitude'

Correspondent B.C., who does not give his address, writes (in his entirety, and under the delightfully uncorrected subject heading, "your an idiot,")
"You SUCK! I'm glad my daily doesn't carry your crap. Why don't we go back to the days of forced servitude, sweat shops, or child labor? What did your parents (if you had any) do for a living? Are they proud of your politics?

# # #

I responded:

Greetings --
Taxes are "forced servitude" -- a form of slavery. Libertarians oppose all involuntary taxation, along with all other forms of forced servitude, with the possible exception of those imprisoned for violent felonies -- though Libertarians would likely imprison less than one-third the number locked up by our current "compassionate" regime, since any Libertarian regime would promptly re-legalize self-medication; all forms of consensual, victimless commerce; and especially the unrestricted keeping and

bearing of arms by peaceful citizens.
Needless to say, there would be no crime of "tax evasion."
Since I assume you favor taxation to fund your favorite government schemes -- as well as the jailing of those who engage in types of commerce which harm no one but of which you do not approve -- it is you who endorse "forced servitude," the theft of money from the paychecks of others, on penalty of imprisonment should they resist (most of it to staff your police-welfare state) ... so long as you believe you retain a role in choosing whose head will be bowed lower than yours by the yoke of the official levies.
As to your position that your local newspaper should not carry any opinions that disagree substantially with your own, I believe this expresses your respect for the First Amendment, and Mr. Jefferson's underlying notion that the best public policy will result from the freest and widest possible public debate, quite nicely. Rest assured, here you have lots of company.
On the subject of "child labor," why shouldn't children be able to earn and keep as much as they like? Why do current "child labor" laws exempt farm employment? If child labor is so destructive, why should we condemn the children of farmers to whatever harm

 
this presumably does them?
Why should a 15-year-old computer genius be banned from starting his own company and helping his family with the resultant income, because of absurd socialist laws (designed to protect what their drafters absurdly believed were "a finite number of jobs, which should thus be set aside for heads of households") enacted during a largely-vanished era when "employment" meant descending into the mines before dawn?
In the recent incident of Wendy Diaz, the 15-year-old Honduran girl who was brought to Washington by the protectionist "National Labor Committee" to testify about the Central American "child labor sweatshops" in which she worked, supporting her two younger brothers by sewing "Kathie Lee" Gifford-label clothing, did your esteemed "local daily" bother to tell you "the rest of the story" ... how one worker there told The New York Times "This has been an enormous advance for me, and I give thanks to my maquila (factory) for it. My monthly income is seven times what I made in the countryside, and I've gained 30 pounds since I started working here"?
Or how poor Ms. Diaz herself was horrified to learn that as a result of her

testimony the factory would be laying off all workers under 16, testifying later in the day that if they lost their jobs at the factory, her young friends would have no choice but to turn to prostitution? (See William Anderson's "Kathie Lee's Children," in the September, 1996 edition of "The Free Market," the monthly publication of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.)
In the end, the main effect of the "child labor laws" has been to guarantee kids have nothing productive to do, leaving them bored and (dare we say it?) lacking in "self-esteem." Nature then takes its predictable course, providing the raison d'etre for two of the great dollar-devouring triumphs of the modern police-welfare state, the oxymoronic "Juvenile Justice system," and the mandatory government youth internment and indoctrination camps (still charmingly known as "public schools,") where our kids are taught no ancient languages, no modern languages, precious little grammar or algebra or history of Western thought, but plenty of lessons on how those who oppose ever-higher taxes are "selfish," how the cynical tyrants Lincoln and FDR were "heroes," and how unrestrained capitalism, the system that made this

 
country great, would poison the earth if not for the intervention of our brave, compassionate regulatory police.
Finally, although I doubt you really care, my father taught me to have the intellectual courage and fortitude to stand up for what I come to believe is right and true, no matter how unpopular it may prove in the short run.
I believe he is reasonably proud of my having done so, although he has surprised me by asking, quite seriously, whether I don't worry that a regime increasingly intolerant of even the slightest hint of real resistance or criticism (witness the way they have infiltrated, "set up," and busted anyone bold enough to form an above-ground militia unit) may soon attempt to arrest, imprison, or otherwise silence me for speaking my conscience.
I gather you would likely volunteer to

be part of the "midnight squads" sent to thus silence any voice that inconveniently points out how much America now resembles the fascist police states our fathers so proudly fought, 50-odd years ago.
Am I to assume your parents would be proud of your inarticulate intolerance of dissent?
In Freedom,
-- V.S.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.

§ § §