Ideology II: Why I am not a liberal

In the second of a 4 part series on ideology, I would like to explain why I am not a liberal.
I am using the term 'liberal' in the American sense; i.e., a general acceptence of personal liberties, but a reasonably high degree of government intervention in the economic sphere.

I could reason against this from an economic basis; the theory (and the past) have shown that high taxation, in the long run, results in poor economic performance as it screw up incentives. But, that's a boring argument and is also one which would require a lot of theory and data finding, neither of which I can be bothered to do.
Instead, it is better to look at the issue of government intervention in economics from a philosophical theoretical point of view. I don't believe that it's morally permissable for the government to intervene in economics in almost any circumstance. I suppose the government can intervene in two ways:
1) Taxation and spending
2) Regulation

Taxation and spending. I am well aware that there are a lot of people who would be on the streets if they didn't have government help. I am also aware that many people would not have a basic level of education. However, I do not believe that we can tax and spend to solve this. Yes, from a utilitarian point of view, it probably is better for the government to intervene here. But given that utilitarianism is a horrible form of ethics, I won't accept the policy on that basis. Instead, it is important to think about what taxation is; much like how I said I think it's important to think about what a law is a couple of blogs ago.
Taxation is literally stealing. To quote Nozick, "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor". What is the difference between slavery and taxation? We might think, "Hmm, it would be nice if we could help those who don't have a job, let's just tax the rich". And yes, I'm sure that that would create the greatest utility. But is it moral? Is it morally permissable to steal from someone in order to spend it on someone else as you see fit? I think not.

There is only one possible non-utilitarian refutation to this argument that I can envisage:
"We are part of a society, which we have a responsbility towards". Uh, how about no. The individual is an end in himself; you cannot morally take control of some or all of the individual against his consent (which is exactly what taxation does). Unless the individual has specifically chosen to admit himself to this arbitrary 'society' you've decided upon, nobody has any rights over him. The social contract is only legitimate if the individual has signed the contract; if the individual has not signed the contract, then it isn't a contract at all, but it is enslavement.
We probably do have a duty to society. Is it ok to steal from and enslave those who think that they don't?
No.

Regulation. Regulation doesn't appear to be as bad as taxation - I mean, no-one loses anything right?
Firstly, regulation is a lot worse than taxation when it comes to screwing up incentives and making an economy function poorly.
But, more than that, it's immoral. If I make a contract between me and another person, what possible right does the government have to say, "Nope, sorry, you need to change the terms of it"? If I want to pay the person signing the contract X amount per hour, and he is prepared to accept X amount per hour, exactly who loses out, Mr. Government? To quote Friedman, "The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." The government can't regulate a contract without pissing off at least one person in the contract (and possibly both, such as in the case of "I'll pay you £3/hr", "Sweet", "Sorry, you have to pay a minimum wage of £5/hr, "Oh right I can't afford that, sorry no job for you!")
The government can't tell me what contracts to make with other people whilst maintaining any sort of legitimacy.

Thus, I am not a liberal. Not only does liberal economic policy make for bad economics, it also is simply immoral. Stealing from others, or telling them how to make contracts, is not validated by what you percieve to be 'social justice'