The difference between being coerced and coercing

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost anyone probably could sell the fruits of their labor...sure. But in terms of "rights" a non-real estate owning individual in ACland can exist only at the pleasure of property owners. This person does not have a right to travel to his place of labor because all travel is conducted on private property (private roads/waterways.) It would likely not be a problem in real terms (he would probably just trespass, or be given permission to travel on company owned roads), but all of this is at the pleasure of the land owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Do you realize that society is a royal mess as it stands right now? We are all paying ~50% of our income in taxes to exist on government territory as it is right now.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? It's a big deal that the one universal right upon which the foundations of AC are built (the right to your personhood) is ultimately contingent upon the whims of others. The right to life/"controlling the fruits of one's labor" is a fairly hollow right if it doesn't include the right to exist in any tangible place.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? It's a big deal that the one universal right upon which the foundations of AC are built (the right to your personhood) is ultimately contingent upon the whims of others. The right to life/"controlling the fruits of one's labor" is a fairly hollow right if it doesn't include the right to exist in any tangible place.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the "right to exist" includes the right to exist in some "tangible place" are you suggesting that it includes a right to exist in a *particular* "tangible place"? If so, how is that tangible place determined for each person? Because the property I own now isn't the property I owned a year ago, did my right change? And is my right different than my neighbors?

If two people have different rights, wouldn't they be different classes of people?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So if the "right to exist" includes the right to exist in some "tangible place" are you suggesting that it includes a right to exist in a *particular* "tangible place"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...good question. I would say it has to be a right to exist in "some" tangible place, not a particular one. Are you suggesting that you can have the right to exist without the right to exist in any tangible place?

[ QUOTE ]
If so, how is that tangible place determined for each person?

[/ QUOTE ]

In ACland, I posit that it wouldn't exist (absent private property ownership.) With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Because the property I own now isn't the property I owned a year ago, did my right change?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your right is the same --- to physically exist on personally held real property and public lands/roadways. So even in the absence of ownership of personal real property, you still have a right to be somewhere in this world. Not true if all land is privately held.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if the "right to exist" includes the right to exist in some "tangible place" are you suggesting that it includes a right to exist in a *particular* "tangible place"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...good question. I would say it has to be a right to exist in "some" tangible place, not a particular one. Are you suggesting that you can have the right to exist without the right to exist in any tangible place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then what's the difference between "a right to exist" and "a right to exist in some tangible space, but not any *particular* tangible space"? You're always in some tangible space.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If so, how is that tangible place determined for each person?

[/ QUOTE ]

In ACland, I posit that it wouldn't exist (absent private property ownership.) With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Because the property I own now isn't the property I owned a year ago, did my right change?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your right is the same --- to physically exist on personally held real property and public lands/roadways. So even in the absence of ownership of personal real property, you still have a right to be somewhere in this world. Not true if all land is privately held.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. So this means anyone can exist in these spaces, right? So there's no basis for "building a wall" and no basis for excluding anyone from immigrating; to do so blocks these people from existing in areas they apparently have a right to exist in.

Correct?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
...With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that under statism, dead people aren't automatically permitted to assign all of their property, post-mortem, to their designated successors without limit of any kind (and in the process, create an absolute hegemony of the landed).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that under statism, dead people aren't automatically permitted to assign all of their property, post-mortem, to their designated successors without limit of any kind (and in the process, create an absolute hegemony of the landed).

[/ QUOTE ]

The property is assigned pre-mortem.

Would you have a problem with Mr. X signing a contract in which he transfers all of his property to Mr. Y one week from today? Would that contract become invalid if Mr. X died before the assigned time elapsed? If so, why?

Who has any greater claim to the property, any right to overrule the benefactor's own decision as to the disposal of his rightful property?

Also, note that the fact that primogeniture is no longer in vogue has a lot more to do with the lack of "absolute hegemony of the landed" than any currently-in-place estate tax.

Off topic: do you prefer a tax on estates or on heirs?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that under statism, dead people aren't automatically permitted to assign all of their property, post-mortem, to their designated successors without limit of any kind (and in the process, create an absolute hegemony of the landed).

[/ QUOTE ]

The property is assigned pre-mortem.

Would you have a problem with Mr. X signing a contract in which he transfers all of his property to Mr. Y one week from today?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Would that contract become invalid if Mr. X died before the assigned time elapsed? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]
N/A

[ QUOTE ]
Who has any greater claim to the property, any right to overrule the benefactor's own decision as to the disposal of his rightful property?

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone who will be harmed by his assignation has, at minimum, a right to self-defense. (And of course, the creation of a landed aristocracy qualifies as harm to anyone not a member. We could argue about whether or not it's harmful to the members as well, pointing at the Kennedy children, Paris Hilton, etc., but that's for another thread, probably in another forum.)

[ QUOTE ]
Also, note that the fact that primogeniture is no longer in vogue has a lot more to do with the lack of "absolute hegemony of the landed" than any currently-in-place estate tax.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, are you saying, "the fact that primogenitur is no longer in vogue" and "current estate taxes" both have to do with the lack of an absolute hegemony of the landed, and you'd like to remove one of these two barriers to that hegemony?

[ QUOTE ]
Off topic: do you prefer a tax on estates or on heirs?

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you see as the difference?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? It's a big deal that the one universal right upon which the foundations of AC are built (the right to your personhood) is ultimately contingent upon the whims of others. The right to life/"controlling the fruits of one's labor" is a fairly hollow right if it doesn't include the right to exist in any tangible place.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't do anything to solve this scenario. A person could be refused a job everywhere, but it simply doesn't because it's a pathological scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? It's a big deal that the one universal right upon which the foundations of AC are built (the right to your personhood) is ultimately contingent upon the whims of others. The right to life/"controlling the fruits of one's labor" is a fairly hollow right if it doesn't include the right to exist in any tangible place.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't do anything to solve this scenario. A person could be refused a job everywhere, but it simply doesn't because it's a pathological scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguing that a state (really a specific state, in this case) isn't better than your morality is in no way an argument for your morality.

You're advocating a right to control one's labor that must eventually conflict with someone else's right to do the same. It doesn't even matter if the chance of a "practical" conflict between my rights and yours is 1/google; you're making a claim for the logical necessity of property ownership on the basis of self-ownership, and I've shown that your logical "necessity", isn't.