Will the real Sarah Palin please stand up? (a propósito de)

1982 - a já famosa rivalidade left-ibertarian versus anarchist-austro-libertarian já vem de há muito tempo atrás ...

"Will the REAL Tom Palmer Please Stand?

Taxation is one of the most important features of Statism
that libertarians can assail. Not just because extorting taxes
from people is one of the multifarious ways in which the State
commits wide-scale aggression, or even because it's one of the
most obvious and burdensome forms of oppression, but also
because the continuation of many of government's other
aggressive activities depend on the steady influx of funds to
finance them. Thus it is fitting for, and indeed behooves,
libertarians to assail the concept of taxation and to struggle
against taxes.

Much to our surprise and delight, the New York Times ran
a piece on Tax Day, April 15, attacking taxation. It was written
by a libertarian - by that LP veteran and Koch-era SLS
officer, Tom Palmer. Painfully aware of his previous
association with the low-tax liberal forces who managed the
Clark campaign, SLS, Cato and many other libertarian
institutions through 1981, we were doubly pleased to read these
words from Tom Palmer's pen:

While the Internal Revenue Service boasts of
a 'voluntary compliance' system of tax
collection, the fact is that taxation is carried
out at the point of a gun. If you choose not to
pay - whatever reason - armed men will
seize you and forcibly take you to jail. If you
resist, violence will be used against you. This is
not 'voluntary compliance.' It is theft.
Bravo Tom!

Only a few weeks later, we received our copy of Update,
the Craniac organ. Amid the routine (and silly) denunciations
of everyone known to have resisted their control, and the gushy
praise for anyone who does submit to their benevolent rule, was
quoted another Tom Palmer statement:

...( T)here have been other negative reactions
to Project Liberty's strategy (of Libertarians'
advocating repeal of the Income Tax
Amendment - Ed.). Tom Palmer ... told
Update that most voters 'perceive drives to
amend the constitution as "kooky," unless
they have a tremendous amount of support, as
in the case of the Equal Rights Amendment or
the Balanced Budget Amendment.' He said
this particular drive, which was started by the
Liberty Amendment Committee over fifty
years ago, has 'definite right-wing conno&-
tions in the eyes of the media.'

Whew, Tom, how can we keep up with you? Just this April
past you were describing taxation as theft. Now you criticize
trying to abolish the income tax as having "right-wing
connotations." Are we supposed to think that it's bad to
address issues and call for action on them, just because they
have "right-wing connotations'? Then perhaps we oughtn't talk
about property rights or the free market because these, too, are
tainted with "right-wing connotations." Let's let the CIA,
Selective Service, and EPA continue their fine work financed
by taxation we're afraid to attack. Which is the real Tom
Palmer: the public Tom Palmer who stands steadfast for
libertarian principle, or the private (intra-movement) Tom
Palmer who counsels his fellow libertarians to avoid "rightwing
connotations'?

But maybe we're being a bit unfair to Tom. Update
preceded his remarks by saying "there have been other negative
reactions" to the income-tax repeal campaign promoted by
Project Liberty (which was founded by Craniac critic David
Nolan - perhaps reason enough for Update to reject the antitax
strategy), whereupon Tom was quoted, presumably to
illustrate one of these "negative reactions."So we read his quote
accordingly. Upon closer reading, however, the statement that
an issue has "right-wing connotations" doesn't necessarily
imply disapproval. It's simply a sentence expressing Tom
Palmer's view on what the media thinks of the issue. It needn't
mean that he disapproves of taking up a "right-wing" issue. If
so, our apologies go to Tom, and all our venom goes instead to
Update for printing Tom's remarks in a misleading manner -
or, at least, for once more making impressive-looking claims
unfavorable to Craniac opponents ("there have been other
negative reactions to Project Liberty'') without a shred of
substantiation.