It’s muddy because feeling my way through it seems fraught with peril. (Is anything else than peril ever “fraught”? Dunno.)

I have mixed feelings about the limit I put forward there. Most of the question to me turns on the delay between when it’s taken from you and when you take it back. I would not have any problem, for instance, with someone who is forced to contribute to a “social insurance” scheme pretending to be sick each year for the exact number of days necessary to reclaim his/her “contributions” for the prior year. But when you extend that span out to the length of a working career, somewhere along the way I think the nature of the thing changes. The fact I can’t really pinpoint when also contributes to the muddiness.

I like IJ. I wasn’t precise enough there. Yes, IJ’s work might not exist were it not for the state. But they are defending people against the state rather than being parasitic through it. I take many translation jobs from individuals and businesses forced into regulatory compliance who simply need communications with the government put into English — provided that their activities are peaceful.

The kind of jobs that I’m referring to there are things like, for example, signing up to be a network support engineer for a nominally private company awarded a big contract to manage and maintain a telecommunications network for the state. Or, even, signing up to be janitor at a prison.

I personally seek to purchase as little as possible, but that’s in the realm of my own preferences rather than ethics, I think. Where I have the chance to get something I need anyway through untaxed transactions, I prefer those.

You said:

one should work to minimize the evil they do and the evil they support in every way possible.

Hear, Hear! I try to keep a “continuous improvement” philosophy on bringing actions in line with one’s beliefs about what’s right, though perhaps that’s in part because my own actions are muddy vs. my ideals.

You said:

The limit to this would be that one should not accept in compensation for work from the state any more than the value stolen from you previously in tax.

How does this fit in with your more recent post about social security? Do you mean your ideal is to maximize distance from evil, but you are tolerant of those who accept money up to the point where they are redeeming their own stolen property?

You said:

Would this job exist were it not for the state? If no, refuse. 

What are your thoughts on lawyers who take only clients who have been victimized by the state? One example is the Institute for Justice, http://ij.org ~ Their jobs would not exist were it not for the state, no?

Finally, what are your thoughts on the ethics of paying sales taxes? Presumably, these would apply to stateless persons who are consumers, not just income tax-payers. Do you seek to minimize paying these as well?

Jeff,
Thank you for the compassion shown in your comment here. As an “armchair anarchist” who has not yet fully distanced myself from the evil that is the state, your compassion inspires me to continue exploring options and moving forward.

Libby

“No man is more hopelessly enslaved than he who falsely believes himself to be free.”

Give them credit for recognizing their bondage, even if they have not yet gathered the will and/or ability to extricate themselves.

I find anarchists/libertarians who talk a lot, but don’t live any differently than any other statist serf very annoying. Conviction without action is meaningless.