Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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!

[/ QUOTE ]

The dawn of the modern term state was made in large part of the principle to protect rights and mainly property rights of the people that inhabit a certain piece of land (nation if you will), from this the principle of the state as a legal entity with obligations and rights was born.

Before this 'state' meant people and its other form 'status' meant someone who rules them. Which if you think about it, tells a story of its own.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

No, but I can spot the gaping hole in your post. Simply decree does not confer legitimate property rights. It's ridiculous. And *even if it did* your post doesn't describe the US, since north american wasn't "an empty country" (as many statists love to point out in their "ZOMG stolen indian lands, therefore AC is impossible" gotcha posts.

[AWoodside]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this criticism of AC is that it sets up a false dichotomy. You seem to be implying that, unlike in AC-land, these black people would be fine and dandy if there were a government in place to make everything right. That simply isn't the case. If there is a region where 90% of the population are violent bigots the black people in that region are going to be screwed regardless of the type of government (or lack thereof) instituted there.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]
This view makes little sense since AC is an absence of governmental law, so "no use of force" might be your personal preference, but there's no reason everyone else has to go along with it. Or, more to the point, you have no basis for calling it "illegitimate".

[ QUOTE ]
I think the conventional definition of "legitimate" is absurd. Legally acceptable according to what standard?

[/ QUOTE ]
What is your standard of legitimacy and why are you in a position to set what is legitimate?

[Phil153]

pvn,

I never made an argument about stolen indian lands - it's the ACists who invoke that. And it applies equally to most private property.

[ QUOTE ]
Simply decree does not confer legitimate property rights

[/ QUOTE ]
What does though? You guys flip in and out of the concept of legitimacy. Am I "allowed" to keep my 2000 acres if I don't graze cattle and only use a tiny portion of it? What about if my ancestors used it, but it hasn't been worked for 30 years?

AC property theory is a joke. You fudge answers to questions like the above, or if you do take a position then you take the exact opposite one when confronted with another situation (i.e. government ownership).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Then neither does just about any other owner, smart guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. It's a tough issue. I don't accept that difficult situations necessitate governmental solutions (particularly when the "solution" is just handing everything to the government).

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Well, I started with KK once and got busted by a boat. Then I started with 96o and again, busted by a boat! Clearly the situations are analogous, because the results were the same.

Property claims are tricky, and I don't want to go too deeply into them. I don't accept AC on moralistic grounds, and certainly not on the kinds of moralistic grounds that would entail letting someone starve because the alternative would be to trespass or something.

But in this situation I don't think I need to bother with those gray areas. When did the AC society start using force? When did it trash property rights? When it did either of those things, it became corrupt and that's when the trouble started.

The whole "private collective" scenario could be used in a discussion of how to prevent coercive bodies from forming in a free market, but that is way off topic.

[ QUOTE ]
So if 90% of the people in a county want black people gone, they can drive them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that they don't own any property in that county, yes, the people who do own that property can kick them out. In general, if 90% of the people living under a given system want something badly enough to make a personal investment, they'll get what they want. If 90% of Americans wanted blacks kicked out of the US, do you really believe our constitution would protect them? In theory, perhaps. But in theory, the ACists won't use force.

In reality, things get messy. There is no system of organization that will prevent this. The best we can do is minimize it and mitigate any harm done.

[ QUOTE ]
It's about flexibility, after all, and there is no rule of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there's rule of law. Who says there isn't? I won't go into detail, because again it's a massive derailment, but of course there would be courts and legislators and law enforcement and everything under AC. It just wouldn't be government enforcing it.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point, you're responding to a claim about why two things are not analagous.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]
That's amusing.

Why can a group of citizens own a parcel of land, and delegate someone to manage it via majority vote, but not do the same thing with a government? And you're using an argument based on an action taken centuries ago, which if used equivalently with private property, more likely than not invalidates the title to the land you're standing on right now.

You can't have it both ways.

[madnak]

I base my view of legitimacy on principle. I don't think there has to be any single "official" view, nor do I think there can be. Legitimacy is largely subjective, so at best it can only be established based on either the opinions of the majority or the opinions of a certain group of elites. I think these are very arbitrary standards (especially in the latter case).

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I base my view of legitimacy on principle. I don't think there has to be any single "official" view, nor do I think there can be. Legitimacy is largely subjective, so at best it can only be established based on either the opinions of the majority or the opinions of a certain group of elites. I think these are very arbitrary standards (especially in the latter case).

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you should admit this

[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
is a weak argument. According to the opinions of the majority, the government has 'legitimate' rule of the land.