Ownership and theft

[Propertarian]

A couple of ACists have denounced the concept of desert in distributive argument, but the reality is that the concept and theory of ownership is also debatable, and their criticisms of desert based theories (e.g. "Because you presume to decide who "deserves" what is given to them and who does not" (Borodog, on why desert theories make him "nauseous") applies to ownership i.e. "Because you presume to decide who "owns" what and who doesn't") apply to their favored principle of distribution-moral ownership/moral property rights-as well.

This is why I don't think we can ever sensibly say that taxation is theft. We can't ever say who owns something in anything other than a legal sense, and tax laws are part of the group of laws that decide who owns what.

Another way of saying this: It cannote be shown that people own their pre-tax income (at least not in a way that is consistent with other libertarian views), and you can't steal what somebody doesn't own.

[Zygote]

Having arbitrarily decided borders that house governments which are each granted exclusive private ownership is far worse than granting each individual private property based on his/her produce.

[spoohunter]

When discussing economics it is fruitless to argue from a moral perspective, imo. Argue from a PRACTICAL perspective.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of ACists have denounced the concept of desert in distributive argument, but the reality is that the concept and theory of ownership is also debatable, and their criticisms of desert based theories (e.g. "Because you presume to decide who "deserves" what is given to them and who does not" (Borodog, on why desert theories make him "nauseous") applies to ownership i.e. "Because you presume to decide who "owns" what and who doesn't") apply to their favored principle of distribution-moral ownership/moral property rights-as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Which is why my point has always been that while there are an infinite number of potential systems of property ownership and title assignation, there is only one that is objective.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't think we can ever sensibly say that taxation is theft. We can't ever say who owns something in anything other than a legal sense, and tax laws are part of the group of laws that decide who owns what.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most ridiculously circular thing I've read all day. "You can't call it theft because a small cabal of men get to arbitrarily define 'theft.'"

[ QUOTE ]
Another way of saying this: It cannote be shown that people own their pre-tax income (at least not in a way that is consistent with other libertarian views), and you can't steal what somebody doesn't own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of the world you are advocating: No one is entitled (I wonder where that word came from?) to what is theirs, but everyone is entitled to what is everyone else's.

There is no better recipe for violent conflict that what you advocate.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
When discussing economics it is fruitless to argue from a moral perspective, imo. Argue from a PRACTICAL perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't know my point had anything to do with morals.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. Which is why my point has always been that while there are an infinite number of potential systems of property ownership and title assignation, there is only one that is objective.


[/ QUOTE ] Which is?

[ QUOTE ]
This is the most ridiculously circular thing I've read all day. "You can't call it theft because a small cabal of men get to arbitrarily define 'theft.'"

[/ QUOTE ] That comment was in no way circular. What I said is that no solid a priori/non-legal definition of ownership exists; and hence the law (if anything) decides who owns what.

If you can't define ownership without the law, the law decides what is stealing and what is not.

My claim also leaves open the possibility that theft isn't a real thing, because nobody truly knows who owns what in a moral sense.

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another way of saying this: It cannote be shown that people own their pre-tax income (at least not in a way that is consistent with other libertarian views), and you can't steal what somebody doesn't own.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Think of the world you are advocating: No one is entitled (I wonder where that word came from?) to what is theirs, but everyone is entitled to what is everyone else's.

There is no better recipe for violent conflict that what you advocate.

[/ QUOTE ] UM, to say that people are not "entitled" to what is theirs presupposes a moral definition of ownership (i.e., which I argued against, and therefore this comment begs the question. You are merely reasserting what I argued against, without argument or counterargument.

SO, how do we decide what is "theirs", other than in a legal sense? Using your definition and way of deciding what is "theirs", of course. I'd like to know what this definition, once again.

Last time I checked, western democracies use the definition of property rights that I am talking about (because taxation exists), and they have been, as a group, the most peaceful, unagressive nations

If you take a look at which countries have the most internal violence, it sure in the heck is not the ones with the highest rate of taxation, or most democratically decided redistribution.

Your claim would predict that the scandinavian countries would be warmongering cesspols of crime. But they are the most peaceful countries in the world.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Having arbitrarily decided borders that house governments which are each granted exclusive private ownership is far worse than granting each individual private property based on his/her produce.

[/ QUOTE ] Your presupposed non-legal concept of individual private property rights is completely unworkable.

The first problem with it, so far, is that nothing is fully produced completely humans. All things are made out of natural resources as well. Hence, under this definition, nobody could own anything.

The second obvious problem is, people trade.

The third, and worst, problem is that most (almost all) things are produced cooperatively i.e. by many people. So if twenty people work together to create a car, each owns 1/20th of the car? Worse still, that car blueprint was created by someone else, which could have only been created because of invention X, which could have only been created instead of invention Y....etc. Do all these people own part of the car? Things get even more difficult if you sell the car (does the guy who came up with money get part of the trade? How about the police who enforce the trade and keep the area safe so that trading can occur? What about all the consumers, who created the high price of the car via consumer demand?)

Another problem, for almost all, would be that your definition of ownership rules out capitalism, because profits are, by definition, the surplus product of what THE workers produce, but capitalists own that. That is, what the worker produces is owned by the capitalist, not the worker.

The classic, state based way of determining ownership, which you may not like (despite the massive ammount of wealth and health that has been created by advanced captialistic republics), at least functions.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim would predict that the scandinavian countries would be warmongering cesspols of crime. But they are the most peaceful countries in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tattoos and piercings make people better rebounders.


[ QUOTE ]

If you take a look at which countries have the most internal violence, it sure in the heck is not the ones with the highest rate of taxation, or most democratically decided redistribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or those with the least.

[RED FACE]

[ QUOTE ]
Another way of saying this: It cannote be shown that people own their pre-tax income (at least not in a way that is consistent with other libertarian views), and you can't steal what somebody doesn't own.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm neither a philosopher nor an economist...

If one didn't own the money he earned why would he work for it?

Even if ownership can't be established one still needs to justify taking something out of anothers hand. If one didn't have a right to life it doesn't mean that others have a right to kill him.

I think it's the taxer that must establish a moral right.

I start with, getting-what-you-pay-for/work-for and paying-for-what-you-get, and these things must of course be consentual.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having arbitrarily decided borders that house governments which are each granted exclusive private ownership is far worse than granting each individual private property based on his/her produce.

[/ QUOTE ] Your presupposed non-legal concept of individual private property rights is completely unworkable.

The first problem with it, so far, is that nothing is fully produced completely humans. All things are made out of natural resources as well. Hence, under this definition, nobody could own anything.

The second obvious problem is, people trade.

The third, and worst, problem is that most (almost all) things are produced cooperatively i.e. by many people. So if twenty people work together to create a car, each owns 1/20th of the car? Worse still, that car blueprint was created by someone else, which could have only been created because of invention X, which could have only been created instead of invention Y....etc. Do all these people own part of the car? Things get even more difficult if you sell the car (does the guy who came up with money get part of the trade? How about the police who enforce the trade and keep the area safe so that trading can occur? What about all the consumers, who created the high price of the car via consumer demand?)

Another problem, for almost all, would be that your definition of ownership rules out capitalism, because profits are, by definition, the surplus product of what THE workers produce, but capitalists own that. That is, what the worker produces is owned by the capitalist, not the worker.

The classic, state based way of determining ownership, which you may not like (despite the massive ammount of wealth and health that has been created by advanced captialistic republics), at least functions.

[/ QUOTE ]

My words were misleading.

Let me rather say "Having arbitrarily decided borders that house governments which are each granted exclusive private ownership is far worse than granting each individual private ownership and sovereignty over his/her body.