Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The territorial monopoly can choose to provide "the right to reside on the the territory" in a way that pure individual property rights do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Are you saying that that a governmental territorial monopoly can do this but a private all land is owned "territorial monopoly" can't or just that it is more likely under a government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am considering "government" to be, really, a democratic state. I am also assuming that a democratic state will be built on foundation of underlying rights for all citizens in the territorial monopoly, and that elected officials will have severe limitations on their ability to violate those rights of their citizens. I am considering a "pure property rights society" to be a network of land owners, each of whom has uninhibited options to define the rights of people he or she allows on his or her property. In the one case, the "permission" of the government in required only insofar as you require that the government officials follow through on their obligation to follow the "basic rules" for the territory. In the other case, the permission of the land owners is a necessary condition of the "basic rules" themselves, namely the property rights rules.

In the case of a government that promises all people a place to exist, the failure to deliver on that promise is a violation of the rules of the territorial monopoly. In the case of pure property rights, the failure to deliver a place to exist could occur completely within the rules of the territorial monopolies. In the one case, denial of the right to exist is a failure in applying the rules, in the other it could be a successful application of the rules.

I'm not sure if that answers your question exactly. I not really sure what is "more likely" to happen in either case. It is clear that a network of land owners could choose to all follow the same rules, including redistribution of their own land as they see necessary to eliminate the "all land is owned oh no" problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just assuming that governments will be "nice". There's no reason, then, to NOT assume individuals wouldn't be just as nice. Think of individual property owners as really small governments, ones with more responsible, accountable leaders. My personal "microstate" is a democratic state. My wife and I are equal owners of the state. All of the citizens of the state have equal rights.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess if someone sleep walked and killed someone (and hypothetically I could be 100% sure he killed the person in his sleep) I would not consider that person a murderer. He objectively killed someone, but classifying this as "murder" seems wrong to me, when the real issue is that he has some sleep disorder. When I call it "murder" it's obvious that I'm trying to make some loaded point.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he DID KILL SOMEONE. Is calling him a "killer" wrong? I don't call the supporters of taxation "maliciously-intented theives". Just theives. I don't really care if they intended to steal or not, or if they were malicious or not.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't exactly the same thing, but remember when that jogger dude referred to ACists as "Darwino Capitalists." It might be true that one implication is that the weak would die; but in a libertarian's mind this is actually a good thing, or at least worth it if maybe unpleasant. But the word is just so loaded, and implies some moral judgment that isn't fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's a good thing about anyone dying. What kind of statement is that?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, pvn, Nielsio, and nietz... I'd like to ask you this:

If I know my friends, neighbors, and family to basically be good people, and I know "theft" to imply something that I do not condone, and I know my friends and family agree with government sponsored theft, then what exactly am I supposed to conclude? Without questioning the decency of society at large (which seems a silly thing to do, since 'good' and 'bad' are relative terms) one of two things must be the case. Either there is some difference between the moral implications between taxation and theft proper, or theft proper isn't as bad as I thought it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or another possibility: they're not the "basically good people" you assumed they are.

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes, to me anyways, perception just becomes reality. Perception can change. I can see why reminding people of the objective similarity between the two actions can be a good thing, if your goal is for perception to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if enough people perceive muder to be OK, it becomes really OK? How many?

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess that basically highlights the difference between "me" and "you." I tend to think (very basically) that making life "better" is impossible and a pointless endeavor. Reality becomes reality, and formerly small burdens just arise as larger burdens, and nothing is actually better, even though our instincts tell us they will be. So by extension, I really don't care about changing people's minds. I'd rather work with perception and make the most of it than try to change it for what I believe will be no net gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

If making life better is impossible and pointless, than using such intent as the basis of taxation must be just as bogus as any other justification, right?

[neverforgetlol]

can we just merge this forum with anti-state.com already

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
can we just merge this forum with anti-state.com already

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, this was obviously an AC thread, just from the thread title. Its not like this was hijacked.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, pvn, Nielsio, and nietz... I'd like to ask you this:

If I know my friends, neighbors, and family to basically be good people, and I know "theft" to imply something that I do not condone, and I know my friends and family agree with government sponsored theft, then what exactly am I supposed to conclude? Without questioning the decency of society at large (which seems a silly thing to do, since 'good' and 'bad' are relative terms) one of two things must be the case. Either there is some difference between the moral implications between taxation and theft proper, or theft proper isn't as bad as I thought it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or another possibility: they're not the "basically good people" you assumed they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh OK, I forgot that in the world of bitterness, a majority of people are evil.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes, to me anyways, perception just becomes reality. Perception can change. I can see why reminding people of the objective similarity between the two actions can be a good thing, if your goal is for perception to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if enough people perceive muder to be OK, it becomes really OK? How many?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me a world where people evolved, biologically and culturally, to live despite the fact that a certain % of people believed murder to be OK, and I'd say yes then it is OK to that degree.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I guess that basically highlights the difference between "me" and "you." I tend to think (very basically) that making life "better" is impossible and a pointless endeavor. Reality becomes reality, and formerly small burdens just arise as larger burdens, and nothing is actually better, even though our instincts tell us they will be. So by extension, I really don't care about changing people's minds. I'd rather work with perception and make the most of it than try to change it for what I believe will be no net gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

If making life better is impossible and pointless, than using such intent as the basis of taxation must be just as bogus as any other justification, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does this even make sense? What are you trying to say. I'm not trying to argue that taxation is justified.

You clearly make no attempt to process the overall picture of what I'm trying to say, and would rather nit pointless semantics. I think I'm done here.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
But he DID KILL SOMEONE. Is calling him a "killer" wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not technically wrong, but I would not refer to him as a "killer" if I believe him to have killed by mistake. That's exactly my point. It isn't objectively wrong, but it's loaded and a poor categorization, unless you're trying to score a cheap point.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Most people who support taxes don't, I don't think, see taxation as theft, even if you can argue why they intellectually should see it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alaw-
whose view is more legitimate in your opinion when it comes to determining the severity of a crime, the criminal or the victim?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation is theft. But is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor justified? Thats your choice to make. Either way one has to acknowledge its theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that with government, it's stealing from the rich and giving .01% of what was stolen to the poor.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Any baby born into the world is forced to accept the property claims of those who came before him, whether he knows and agrees with them or not, and whether or not they were valid when first made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. Please read the AC FAQ Shake made.