Property rights, taxes, and theft

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the main reasons is because of disagreements about morality: we need a procedure that adjuciates between these claims (judical branch), and an entity that makes sure that what is decided on by that procedure is followed by people living in that area (executive). As long as their are disputes about ethics we need the coercive state; which is the opposite of what you guys seem to think: if there was universal agreement on and compliance to ethical norms then anarchy might have a chance. But since that will never happen, we need states to enforce the law, Which is distinct from morality.

[/ QUOTE ] We need one, one single interpretation of what the law is, that is backed by force, in order for human beings to get along. Ethical disagreements are an argument in favor of government and enforcing the prevailing view of what the law is/should be, not an argument against it. Theoretical and potential violence, which is not objectionable, decreases the occurence of real violence, which is what is really objectionable.

[madnak]

Every disagreement doesn't need to be resolved according to the same standards. Different rules can apply to different people in different communities and societies. What is so unthinkable about that?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Every disagreement doesn't need to be resolved according to the same standards. Different rules can apply to different people in different communities and societies. What is so unthinkable about that?

[/ QUOTE ] As long as there is one binding interpretation of what the law is in a particular geographic area it will work fine; there can be many states i.e. Alabama and California don't need the exact same laws, nor do Norway and New Zealand. There can be different jurisdictions in different areas; but there cannot be two different jurisdictions in the same area.

There cannot be two supreme courts, or two legislatures, making and interpreting laws in the same area. There needs to be an end to the dispute process. There can't be five supreme courts and five legislatures in Illinois all claiming to have authority, for example; they will decide on different things on the same issues, and then disputes will go unresolved, both between people and between the different courts and legislatures. It can't be the case that the authority says that anti-X and X are both part of the law, or there is no law at all. Murder cannot be legal and illegal at the same time. We need one definition of what it means to murder someone, for example, and the only way to get that it is to have one authority deciding what that definition is.

Anarchy will not work because of (inter alia) this fact about human interaction.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as there is one binding interpretation of what the law is in a particular geographic area it will work fine; there can be many states i.e. Alabama and California don't need the exact same laws, nor do Norway and New Zealand. There can be different jurisdictions in different areas; but there cannot be two different jurisdictions in the same area.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good. My property is a geographic area. My neighbor's is a geographic area.

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah blah (inter alia) blah blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

You use this term way too much. Did you recently get a copy of "The Big List of Important Sounding Phrases"? You remind me of wannabe hackers who just discovered the Jargon File and start trying to use obscure terms as much as possible in conversation.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Property titles come from proper transfers of property. However, history has a lot of violations of property rights, so all property titles are invalid. Therefore, when I violate your rights, it's on titles that were invalid anyway.



[/ QUOTE ] Not quite, it's a denial that redistribution is a violation of rights, because you don't have a right to your de facto property because it was illegitmately acquired on your own definition of illegitmate and legitmate ways to acquire it. You and others have not followed your view of the way to get property rights in your pursuit of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your theory does assume the existence of property rights.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I don't agree with formal self-ownership- Cohen doesn't agree with it either. I don't know why you think Cohen believes in Self-ownership either; he was just trying to work on the opposition's premises for the sake of argument like I was.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cohen has come to the realization that he can, in no way shape or form, refute the self-evident ownership of one's own body, so he has resorted to finding a way to not fully accept self-ownership thereby justifying violent intervention onto one's body.

Let me ask: If I don't have formal ownership over my body, who does?

What is the problem if I own a slave but I allow him to do any chore he wants for one hour a day and the rest is leisure time on my estate. He has plenty of substantive self-ownership, moreso than most, right?

[ QUOTE ]
This is not at all self-evident to me or to most others. This is the 'mix your labor with it' idea that I critiqued in the OP-a terrible theory and unworkable theory of initial acquistion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not self-evident?

Why doesn't my neighbor mow my lawn? Why doesn't my neighbor come fix my toilet? Why doesn't my neighbor go pick blueberries for me from my blueberry patch and make me some jam?

Are the answers to the above questions self-evident to you or must you really really try hard to think about them?

And furthermore, why wouldn't it be theft of property if a gunman came to my ice palace and told me to get lost and that my ice palace was his now?

[ QUOTE ]
All current titles are illegitmate by your own definition of illegitmate. Unless they are returned to the legitmate owner (however we would discover it), then anybody can do whatever they want with resources; nobody owns them morally on libertarians own theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand libertarian theory. Who staked the initial claim on my property? Who first mixed their labor with my property? (I'll give you a hint - it was nothing but dense forest in 1983) In what way was its initial acquisition unjust? In what way did I acquire it illegitimately?

My plot here in PA was paid for peacefully by William Penn and sold to some farmer. That farmer sold it to another farmer. I bought it off of that farmer and own it today.

Are you seriously contending that because some Native Indian tribe 800 years ago MIGHT have violently stole it from another Native Indian tribe before selling it to Penn that I have no rightful claim over the property?

Why doesn't that 800 year old victimized tribe take me to court then?

[ QUOTE ]
Legal rights are those decided by whatever institution(s) create the law, by definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so legal rights are not magically created but are in fact a result of a monetary transaction that must pay for that "institution" (in our case, a transaction forced under gunpoint and provided by a monopoly)

[ QUOTE ]
Legal rights are derived from human decisions about what legal rights could and should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the trap. Once legal rights are provided by a coercive monopoly funded by stolen money, legal rights can be the whim of the majority, some *other* humans' decision to throw me in jail for the rest of my life for smoking weed.

[ QUOTE ]
Legal rights are decided by the procedure determining what the law is in that particular area of jurisdiction.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your jurisdiction ends at your own property line. Unless you have guns and the intention to violently intervene on my life, which you so vehemently attempt to justify.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Not quite, it's a denial that redistribution is a violation of rights, because you don't have a right to your de facto property because it was illegitmately acquired on your own definition of illegitmate and legitmate ways to acquire it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, once again you completely twist yourself up.

William Penn peacefully and voluntarily acquires my land from the Lenape. He peacefully and voluntarily exchanges it to a farmer. That farmer peacefully and voluntarily exchanges it to another farmer. I peacefully and voluntarily acquire it from that farmer.

Without putting any words in my mouth or assuming I follow the doctrine of John Locke, tell me in your words, how is my property unjustly acquired and therefore illegitimate?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people regard the use of force by government as morally legitmate; that is why the state is often defined as: the entity who has a monopoly on the use of LEGITMATE force in a particular area. that is what is agreed on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. Throwing Jews into ovens = legitimate force.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "unanimous" rule against this

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure its not unanimous?

What civilized society in the world can I go murder someone or steal something from someone else and not get into any legal trouble for it?

[ QUOTE ]
Most people think that for people to get along we NEED an entity that uses force legitmately, contrary to what you are assuming here

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the trap. If most people think something, that makes it legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why taxation is not actually violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mugging usually isn't violent either. I mean, who wants to get shot and killed over $12?

I take it then, that you believe mugging someone is not violent intervention since its usually not violent?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
There can be different jurisdictions in different areas; but there cannot be two different jurisdictions in the same area.


[/ QUOTE ]

Without repeating your contention, can you explain why not? (All your subsequent paragraph did was repeat several times "IT JUST CANNOT BE, IT JUST CANNOT BE")

[ACPlayer]

All property is owned by the society and not by the individual. The property is on loan (lease, borrow, stolen, acquired, etc) to an entity until another entity comes and takes it away (by force, by persuasion, or by the equally unowned property called money).

Most (all) laws are designed to make it harder for one person to steal, acquire, lease, borrow, or otherwise acquire property) that you are not already enjoying.

This is the fundamental nature of capitalism.