Many people seem to believe that if they avoid naming this fact, it will cease to exist.
For example, see the responses to my tweet below —
https://twitter.com/MaxAutonomous/status/1063905909737279488
Those who wish to pretend that tax payments do not entail an initiation of force, should tell others how they can 'opt out' of paying for all the destructive things that government does, since many people would like to know how to exercise that supposed 'freedom' (I know I would). Obviously, this is not possible, which is what makes all tax collections an initiation of force — that is, if you refuse to pay (when that is even possible, as with income taxes), loss of freedom or property (i.e. prison time, or an asset seizure) is the ultimate consequence.
Notice the phrase the first responder used in the tweet above — "Or how you get to create the definition" — indicating that we can simply chose to ignore the actual relationship of a subjugated taxpayer to government, and so by 'creating a new definition', the nature of compulsory tax payments, which are made against the will of taxpayers, will no longer exist in reality. Of course, the notion of 'creating a definition' has nothing to do with the enforcement mechanism actually used to collect tax payments. The enforcement mechanism that government creates for tax collections is either acknowledged, or it is not — citizens have no ability to affect the process, or alter what it means, by 'creating new definitions'. That is, government 'creates the definition', since government defines the tax code, and the penalties that will be exacted from those taxpayers who unilaterally decide that the payment system is voluntary (i.e. not an initiation of force).
And notice how the second responder to my tweet above, chose a check on the government's power to deprive citizens of freedom, that the founders wrote in the Bill of Rights (the right to counsel to defend against a state prosecution, in the 6th Amendment), as somehow indicating government is justified in always depriving people of freedom whenever a large enough group demands that others subsidize them. This is the implication of trying to make it seem like forcing one group of taxpayers to purchase some good or service for another group (e.g. health care), is somehow consistent with an accused being legally required to have counsel during a state prosecution, at taxpayer expense.
The second responder implies that taxpayers (the state) providing an attorney at no cost to individuals being prosecuted by the state, as part of due process, is similar to forcing one group to pay for the medical care of another. A court appointed attorney is a kind of small check on state power, because that 'subsidy' provides some assistance to those who are actually being attacked by the state (since that is what a criminal prosecution is). A court appointed attorney is similar in concept to the Miranda warning, or any other element of due process, which must all be paid for by taxpayers — all such impediments on government's ability to imprison citizens make it harder for the state to railroad an accused (of course, these impediments also make it more difficult to imprison the guilty, since the process must be followed in all cases). But notice the court system itself is a 'subsidy', when viewed in this way, since if the Founders were not so suspicious of government power, they could have 'simplified' the legal process by eliminating due process and the court system entirely, in order to reduce taxpayer expense (thankfully, they did not).
But what does that have to do with forcing one group to buy another group health care — as if health care can only be some kind of state process, or that health care needs were actually created by the state, and so must be funded by taxpayers?
Must it really be explained that if you cannot afford to purchase something yourself, and if you then use a political process to create legal penalties against others if they do not make tax payments to cover your cost (i.e. welfare redistribution in general), that you have participated in initiating force against others? Again, to compare this to the 6th Amendment, notice that the Constitution does not create 'a right to counsel as needed', it grants 'a right to a defense against the state' — that is, it only applies in one set of circumstances, which the state controls, when it is explicitly trying to take away an individual's freedom.
Also notice that everything in the U.S. Constitution is intended to restrain government — even the election cycles are the forced replacement of political power at regular intervals (i.e. politicians must re-compete for their jobs whether they (or even the voters) like it or not). It is disturbing to see how few seem to understand that the Constitution, from beginning to end, expresses a deep and well justified distrust of government and politicians.
A human right can only be defined as a right to freedom of action, to gain and keep property in order to sustain one's life — that is all. You have a right to be left alone, to take action to acquire property to sustain your life, free from coercion (the only restriction being the rights of others to freedom of action), and so no legitimate human right can require action from others, except in cases of justified restitution (i.e. retaliatory force). If you have not harmed someone, you have not violated their right to freedom of action, and so you do not morally owe them anything (certainly not hours or days of your labor).
This is a kind of axiomatic concept — trying to argue against it (that is, that people can morally be forced to satisfy the supposed 'positive rights' of others, without respect to any restitution) leads to hopeless contradictions. That is, you have to argue that somehow one person has a 'higher standing' than another, based on some subjective criteria — poverty, lack of 'privilege', etc. — and so becomes 'entitled', and that those individuals you have assigned a 'lower standing' cannot morally disagree (they are not 'entitled'), and so they cannot morally fight back to protect themselves against the required initiation of force to satisfy the supposed 'positive right' that was created (e.g. free health care).
Of course, this is the lie that statists repeat over and over — if you disagree with their supposed moral hierarchy (e.g. the poor are 'entitled' to be subsidized by those more wealthy, a la Bernie Sanders, etc.), statists then define you as immoral, in an attempt to make any rebuttals to their self-contradictory position seem depraved.
In short, legitimate, moral human rights cannot exist to the extent that people accept the notion of 'positive rights', since an individual's right to freedom of action cannot peacefully coexist with the supposed 'positive right' of others to take his time and labor against his will. Supposed 'positive rights' require an immoral initiation of force, because they can only be satisfied by the time and labor of others, and therefore, the loss of freedom (i.e. a rights violation) is required by the fulfillment of such supposed 'rights'.
To the extent that so-called 'positive rights' are enforced, actual human rights must be violated, since so-called 'positive rights' can only be fulfilled by taking by force.
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/Mans-Rights
http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/the-virtue-of-selfishness.html
http://www.aynrand.org/novels/virtue-of-selfishness
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”
A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.
Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness — not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.
The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.
The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.
— Ayn Rand, from her 1963 essay 'Man's Rights', included in her book 'The Virtue Of Selfishness'
