On his March 10th, 2010 radio show, Mr. Boortz carefully parrots the core message found in the Philosophy of Liberty video by Dr. Ken Schoolland. This includes the statement that "taxation is theft". Yet just a few minutes later, Boortz says that it's OK for government to tax people who make above some arbitrary necessity threshold. Did I hear fraud?
Is theft on a small scale moral? Perhaps theft is justified when we do it by proxy. Elect a couple of crooks, send them to Washington and let them tax the rich. According to self proclaimed libertarian Neal Boortz this is justifiable. Society needs some limited stuff so a bit of theft here and there never hurt anyone. Never mind that this logical inconsistency is not supported by his self-ownership position. Many forms of voluntary association can equally co-exist under libertarianism but this does not include theft by a monopoly state. The ability to forceably take your neighbors property either individually or by proxy is theft. The social or economic status of your neighbor is irrelevant. Electing officials who institute theft on your behalf makes you equally guilty. There's no wiggle room unless you are a worm or talk show host.
Boortz's position is much closer to authoritarianism than libertarianism. He is not alone in failing to understand that "complete thought" requires you to examine and discard inconsistent positions even though this may mean that you must admit that you were previously wrong. He should have said all forms of taxation are theft regardless of scope. At least President Obama openly admits he wants your money and will use government to force compliance. How refreshing to encounter truthful crooks.
Perhaps my desire to hear a "complete thought" from a talk show host is itself an example of logically inconsistency.