That's not exactly what I was saying. I was making the point that the majority doesn't have the right to impose its will onto the individual, and using rape to represent the coercive force of taxation as an emotional appeal to the reader's moral compass.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There is no difference, you just used more words. Maybe you have low emotional intelligence or something but using a serious issue and source of trauma like rape as a political prop to make some point about how you want to be an economic parasite who benefits from societal infrastructure without paying into it is in extremely poor taste.
You don't understand, I don't want just me to be tax-exempt, I want everybody to be tax-exempt. I don't believe in theft-funded, monopolized societal infrastructure. I want government, along with all initiation of force, to be abolished.
I'm sure Jonathan Swift heard much the same thing (before trigger words were a thing) when he wrote about eating Irish babies, something I think is objectively worse. However, he used it to illustrate an important point much like this author did.
When you say I have misunderstood, do you mean you didn't actually make inappropriate use of rape as a basis for comparison with taxation of all things? Because that is the only relevant issue here.
My belief is that if you were a woman and you had been raped, you would have chosen to use a different metaphor.
Rape is the theft of an incalculably valued material, but only diests believe that. Murder is the theft of one's life, and for some is the preferable outcome.