Comment: I do see them at odds on some

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I see Locke and Spooner (see in situ)

I do see them at odds on some

I do see them at odds on some issues - like taxation - but that's why I like the combination.

There are certain aspects of both of their philosophies that I don't like. On Locke's side, there's his notion of tacit consent. On Spooner's side, it's his hostility to wage labor. There's of course more examples on both sides.

As far as the specific example that you bring up about Locke -- giving up some rights to live in a society with the protections of law -- I think has to be acknowledged at some level. Either at the level that "government" is merely a paid body guard -- you give it money and it protects you -- , or a more traditional meaning of government where it taxes you and gives you perks as citizens.

The issues are obviously extremely vast. For example, is the United States simply a private club, where the government gets to decide who is members and what its members get? Or is government fundamentally different from other associations that justifies taxation? I don't have THE answer, but I do reject the libertarian party's insistence that citizens should 1) not be forced to pay any taxes and 2) that the government should still provide police protection, courts, etc.