*The following excerpt is from a discussion I overheard between two fellow commuters on the San Diego trolley. As I wrote this from memory, of course some artistic license was taken to fill in any lapses in the following dialogue. For ease of writing, I've named the two stars of this tale the "Rebel" and the "Statist." Without further adieu.. "Rebel: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong? Statist: Yes, violence is wrong ' except in self-defense. Rebel: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence? Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z. Rebel: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive? Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive. Rebel: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail ' where if you try to escape, you are shot. Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments. Rebel: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays 'protection' money to, can it be really argued that he is making a 'free' choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands ' but will be forced to marry one of them ' can she said to be really 'choosing' marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.