Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, what? Not even close. Let's just ignore all the questionable means in general, the characterization of the government as a private corporation (never) etc and talk about the fact the land was already inhabited before the colonists even arrived. The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then neither does just about any other owner, smart guy. You can be the first to do the right thing and vacate America so that the Indians can have it back...

I don't think you understand the private corporation comment either.

To better understand what I'm getting at, imagine a scenario where the first settlers had taken over an empty country, and decided to form a collective that owned all the common land and administered it (by some AC definition of ownership). Then, anyone coming onto their land, and wanting to settle there, had to sign a contract agreeing to abide by the rules of the private collective. All dandy in AC world. 300 years later, you have a US government which is identical to the one today - and yet according to AC rules, the first is legitimate but the second one isn't. Can you spot the gaping hole in AC theory now?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if they did have a legitimate claim "according to the rules," AC is about flexibility, not rigidity. I know some of the posters here get lost on that, but it's true. There is absolutely nothing in AC society that prevents breaking the rules in some cases when they're being applied in silly ways. See all the responses to the "Bill Gates buys one square inch in the middle of the river and then charges everyone who tries to use it ten hojillion dollars!" scenarios in politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why AC doesn't work. It's nothing but popular will, but instead of having a government to embody it, there's nothing. So if 90% of the people in a county want black people gone, they can drive them out. It's about flexibility, after all, and there is no rule of law.

You either have people who respect private property and agreed laws (and the legitimacy of the scenario I describe above), or you have a mess. You want to have your cake and eat it too - which only happens in a theory world.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically

A is X
B is X

and if we accept the opinion Y about X

then A is B

I can live with that, and I'll go on and be pro-choice and pro-tax without a single conflict of logic since I don't agree with Y.

B&W definitions and politics/ethics discussions sure changes alot!

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. As long as you plan on accepting that you do NOT believe in self-ownership, thats fine. You just must then accept the consequences that result from their being no right to self-ownership. Like me enslaving you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, things like these aren't black and white, right or wrong (the Y statement is that they are). So I don't have to agree with that either.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legitimate according to who? Legitimacy is generally defined as 'legally acceptable'. So who made the laws that said the US government could not have the land?

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. As long as you plan on accepting that you do NOT believe in self-ownership, thats fine. You just must then accept the consequences that result from their being no right to self-ownership. Like me enslaving you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not owning myself does not equate to you owning me.

[tame_deuces]

Well, its moot anyway. There is nothing illogical about separating body and possessions into two different categories. That some wish to put them into one category based on some superficial similarity and then use this to claim logical fallacy of an opposing political view is just rhetorical spew.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legitimate according to who? Legitimacy is generally defined as 'legally acceptable'. So who made the laws that said the US government could not have the land?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean within the context of the typical AC view (ie no use of force).

I think the conventional definition of "legitimate" is absurd. Legally acceptable according to what standard? Why, the standard set by a legitimate legislative authority! And what kind of legislative authority is legitimate? One that's legally acceptable!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I've known women that have had abortions, and heard about others, and in all cases, none of them were arguing for the abortion because they were "forced to give their bodily resouces to the foetus." They had one because they had never wanted it in the first place, or because they were raped, or because it would shame their parents, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to get rid of my tax burden because I never wanted it in the first place. It also shames my family.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't, because they are completely separate concepts. Having an abortion is done when a woman reaches her emotional cusp and decides it is the only option. It is a decision based mostly on emotion. Paying taxes is different. You pay taxes, in theory, because it is the right thing to do;

[/ QUOTE ]

Who decided this for me?

[ QUOTE ]
you are being forced to give something back (as you probably wouldn't if you weren't forced).

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I wouldn't! And if the guy mugging you didn't have a knife, you probably wouldn't give him your wallet.

[ QUOTE ]
However most obvious reason would be that you would have heard about it by now, instead of inventing the idea yourself. Have you heard of an anti-tax group, or at least one that is linked to pro-choice groups? I'm going to guess you haven't, probably because I don't think any exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appeal to majority.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this analogy.

The government provides services to the society, and to finance them it needs money/taxes.

The baby doesn't provide any service to its mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm providing a service to you right now (explaining how your rationale for taxes is flawed and morally bankrupt). To finance this, I need money. Please PM me and I'll give you my PS screenname for the transfer. Clearly, you agree that you owe me for this helpful service I have provided.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

[/ QUOTE ]

Labor theory of value!

Those costs should have been alredy accounted for in the transactions. If people do a poor job of accounting for those costs, they'll eventually be driven out of the market by those who do a better job of it.

The pencil I used three minutes ago required a lumberjack to cut the tree down, a driver to haul the tree to the mill, a mill operator to process the wood, another truck driver to take the processed wood to the pencil factory, a pencil maker guy to make the pencil, another driver to haul the pencil to WalMart, a WalMart stock guy to put the pencil on the shelf, and a cashier to process the transaction.

I don't owe any of theose people anything. Each person is compensated appropriately (by their own subjective valuations!) at each step along the way.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. States cannot legitimately own property.

States acquire land either by buying it (with stolen funds), by decree (which does not confer a legitimate property right) (also note escheat would fall into this category), by conquest (effectively robbery), by emminent domain (a subset of conquest), or by "working" the land (which would not confer property rights in the case of government, since they are working the land either with conscripted labor or they are purchasing labor with stolen funds).