For every instance of aggression, the aggressor can usually be assumed to judge that he benefits from the aggression (at least compared to not committing it). This is true not only of the many tax aggressions that Susan and I both oppose, but also of the ground-rent-appropriating aggression that I oppose but that Susan tolerates. As for facile analogies to microorganisms, two can play that game. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flora:
There are more than 500 bacterial species present in the normal human gut and are generally beneficial: they synthesize vitamins such as folic acid, vitamin K and biotin, and they ferment complex indigestible carbohydrates.
So now we know a little more about what Susan thinks about viral rhinopharyngitis (i.e. the common cold), but are still in the dark about what she thinks about
- a St. Louis Accord;
- the five political-ethics questions I asked @60;
- whether any force-initiation is involved at all in a land-value "tax" enforced merely by withdrawing public services;
- whether it's aggression to violate the Lockean provision to leave "as much and as good" when excluding people from unowned land;
- her secret list of neighbor-annexing totalitarians that America could depose right now;
- why (even anarchist) economists recognize that "public goods" is a positive concept rather than a normative one;
- whether it was "amusing" for her to hear that public goods also include jokes, hairstyles, the English language, lighthouses, open-source software, and streetlights;
- why even radicals like David Nolan consider it useful to apply triage to the problem of reducing our tax burden -- you know, like doctors do when confronting various kinds of the "diseases" that Susan was snarking about.