On \"How not to complain about taxes\"
God does not play dice with the universe.
That's Albert Einstein, the great discoverer of quantum mechanics, writing. It pays for theorists of quantum mechanics to listen to Einstein, so as to avoid silly theories about uncertainty in quantum physics.
The above is blatantly wrong, yet it is exactly the same construct used by Elizabeth Anderson over at Left2Right to chastise conservatives and minimal state libertarians about using Lockean natural rights arguments against taxes. Locke's contributions to classical liberalism that are still accepted by natural rights oriented people are that a monarch has no rights that a serf does not also enjoy, that by nature we have the (negative) rights of life, liberty, and property, and that unowned resources can be rightfully claimed as property by use and improvement. For these insights to be true, the quotes that Ms. Anderson points out must be wrong.
Ms. Anderson is correct to point out the contradiction in conservatives and minimal-state libertarians using this natural rights approach in complaining about taxes. For those who insist on involuntary contributions to an organization to provide certain services, claiming that someone does not have a right or claim to another's property seems rather awkward at best. The differences between the modern left and right are ones of degree not principle.
The libertarian line on valid claims against another's property is drawn between voluntary and involuntary. There are many who rightfully may claim my property, the banks and utilities who have provided goods and services to me based on my voluntary promise to pay them in the future, my investors who I have voluntarily promised to make my ideas marketable products, any future children I might have, etc. But there is only one theory I have heard advanced for why the organizations at City Hall, Sacramento, and D.C. have any claim to property and I find it lacking. It is the claim of a social contract. Under existing legislation and administration, we are under this social contract from the moment of birth, and there are severe restrictions on departing the contract. So we have at least two problems, one that existing legislation places "contractual claims" on those incapable of entering into contracts, and two that the normal right of exit is limited and includes heavy penalties. All of this for a "contract" that is not consented to by one of the parties. This is can not be a contract.
Locke's insights accepted by some classical liberals are at odds with both the modern left and right. Locke's greatest contribution to liberalism is incompatible with the modern liberal's policy prescriptions.