|
|
#21
08-17-2007, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
The objection is not that those without land (specifically land - this issue strikes directly to the heart of the objection to territorial monopoly) are having something taken away from them. Rather, they form a second class of humans: those that require the permission of others to exist. Without the permission of others, they have no right to be on anyone's property, ergo they have no right to be without the permission of others. Enforcing strict property rights doesn't directly take any property from them, but simultaneously invalidates their right to self ownership. [/ QUOTE ] The ALIO (all land is owned) problem. I still think there are serious problems with this scenario, one of the largest being the amount of land can be increased, contrary to the ALIO assumption of a fixed quantity of land. Hint: look at a major city's skyline. To the OP, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your intentions might be a mitigating factor, but they don't excuse your actions. 
|
|
#22
08-17-2007, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective. [/ QUOTE ] How did "the majority" come to own these things? Better not say taxes! [/ QUOTE ] In the US: they were there first, and used the land first in the AC definition. The people that were there first agreed amongst themselves to establish a company with a system of shared land, with control of that land vested in directors, who are voted for every few years by shareholders of the company. So the government ownership of most land is very valid under your AC rules, as valid as the claims of any private individual. BTW, the company with shareholders, directors and voting is what we call the US government. Private enterprise FTW.
|
|
#23
08-17-2007, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
I still think there are serious problems with this scenario, one of the largest being the amount of land can be increased, contrary to the ALIO assumption of a fixed quantity of land. Hint: look at a major city's skyline. [/ QUOTE ] are you suggesting building up? Because I'm fairly sure it suffers the same problem (given that I would still need the current owner's permission) or, am I missing the point?
|
|
#24
08-17-2007, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective. [/ QUOTE ] How did "the majority" come to own these things? Better not say taxes! [/ QUOTE ] In the US: they were there first, and used the land first in the AC definition. The people that were there first agreed amongst themselves to establish a company with a system of shared land, with control of that land vested in directors, who are voted for every few years by shareholders of the company. So the government ownership of most land is very valid under your AC rules, as valid as the claims of any private individual. BTW, the company with shareholders, directors and voting is what we call the US government. Private enterprise FTW. [/ QUOTE ] BS. Where did the newly formed US government (with support and consent of possibly (not likely though) more than 50% of the population but certainly less than 100) get the right to levy taxes on everyone?
|
|
#26
08-17-2007, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
BS. Where did the newly formed US government (with support and consent of possibly (not likely though) more than 50% of the population but certainly less than 100) get the right to levy taxes on everyone? [/ QUOTE ] well not all taxes are theft I don't think. like the gas tax, if all that money is used for roads, cannot be considered theft since the gas buyer auto driver reaps the benefits of the tax, eg, there's somewhat of a cause effect relationship.
|
|
#27
08-17-2007, 08:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, intent matters to me. And I think it does for everyone. There's a reason most people see murder as worse than manslaughter. [/ QUOTE ] Of course, "murder" and "manslaughter" are both "killing somebody". So "taxation with good intent" and "armed robber with malicious intent" are still both "stealing". But anyway, when I rob a bank, and send the money to starving kids in africa, it's OK?
|
|
#28
08-17-2007, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Low level "useful idiot" socialists are for the most part good people; their ideas of how things work are just different. [/ QUOTE ] FYP [/ QUOTE ] Strong. Very Strong.
|
|
#29
08-17-2007, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
But consider this scenario...the majority own the roads and businesses and money, and as a condition of using them, they require you to pay a portion to the collective [/ QUOTE ] It is still clearly bogus sine the rules for how the whole system is set up were laid down by a decisive NON majority by guys who died up to two hundred years ago. The availability and use of (for political purposes) things like gerrymandering demonstrates how the majority are not in a position to exercise their "ownership".
|
|
#30
08-17-2007, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Where did this fallacy come from? It's been coming up a lot recently. [/ QUOTE ] The observation that, where only property rights exist and only a subset of the population owns real estate, that there are two classes of people is not a "fallacy". Concern that this is a fatal flaw of anarchocapitalist theory may be a fallacy, as described by your observations. [/ QUOTE ] If the majority own public spaces then any minority suddenly become that same lower class who lives at the whim of the majority.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
