Read it again. First he deals with the NAP, then the rifle example is a justification for taxation and then he justifies the draft. All there and all clear.
OK, I re-read the rifle example, and I
think I see how you call it a justification for taxation. In no place does he describe it as such, but you at least do admit that tax is a theft, and a rights violation, though one intended to prevent a greater one. But the theft of a rifle to prevent a massacre is not the same as a theft of money for unknown purposes. Nor is that money ever returned, while the rifle can be, and is, with compensation for its use, and likely extra compensation to make up for the fact that it was taken against his wishes.
Which brings me to my next book suggestion:
Healing Our World - The Other Piece Of The Puzzle, by Mary J. Ruwart I was going to wait for Niemivh to finish reading the first one, but the discussion has progressed to the point where it's time for you, at least, to read this one. He'll just have to catch up. In the meantime, I intend to see if I can't finish Political Economy.
As to the draft, I point out this:
The point of this argument is not that we should have a draft. As it happens, I not only believe that under present circumstances a draft is a bad thing, I also believe that if the government has the power to impose a draft it is very much more likely that it will use it when it should not than that the rather unlikely circumstances I have described will occur.
