Woah, much of this conversation is pretty side-tracked.

Anyway, I just read the first chapter in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It is an astounding book. I couldn't find the essay("What is Capitalism?") online, and I'm sure as hell not typing it out - but I suggest you both read it.

Back to the topic:

"Freedom" is the right to live your own life. When a lot of people get together, freedom becomes the right to live your own life - and you can't interfere with that right in others, as others can't do to you. The only way to interfere with another's right to live their own life is by using force. Force and freedom are opposites.

Communism holds a subjective morality - meaning nothing is good or bad in and of itself, things are judged by their consequences. "The end justifies the means." As it is subjective, reason(i.e., any claims based on reality) is invalidated, and the only means of enforcement on subjective laws are by force. Every collectivist ideology necessitates the use of force.

Capitalism is the exact opposite. As it is based on the premise of freedom, it holds an objective morality. Reason is the encouraged means of persuasion. Force is banned outright, as it is objectively against freedom.

Things like income tax and eminent domain are parts of collectivist ideology - and guess what? Are enforced by brute force. If I don't pay income taxes, I can lose all of my money, my house, my car, etc. If I don't want to sell to the government, they'll take my house anyway.
They are also dictated around the premise that I have an obligation to the government, to the "public good." What is the public? Is it everybody? But everybody doesn't agree about every issue. The majority? Who decides the majority? The "public good" is a subjective term based around a subjective morality - it means whatever the hell someone wants it to mean in any given situation. It could mean one person or a million people, and when you allow yourself to go into the realm of the subjective, you get this "economic development" eminent domain crap which doesn't tangibly benefit anyone. The government, in order to protect against force, has a legal monopoly on the use of retalitory force(police, army, etc.) - it cannot initiate force, since the initation of force is against freedom. Therefore, it cannot initiate the use of force against me when I don't let them steal my property.

NOBODY can make a claim on another person's right to live their own life. Saying I have an obligation to my neighbor is horrible enough, but saying I have an obligation to my government or the undefinable "society" is disgusting by any moral standard that values life. The "public" or "society" are only a collection of individuals, and the only common interest, the only possible "common good" is freedom.

I am alive. My life has value in and of itself - it is an end in itself, not the means to the end of others. I have no obligation outside of myself - to say that I have a "higher obligation" devalues my life. I refuse to subordinate my life to any person or any collective that demands payment for my existence.