Presumably society comes with concepts of fairness, and that it is more fair to take someone's surplus means to share with those who are running a deficit. This need not be coercive either, as there are always incentives such as tax credits and deductions so forth to spur voluntary giving. I'm sure there are moral philosophers better suited to explain it than me.
> And in order to maintain consensus, and order, anyone who doesn’t agree is subject to violence. No, thats not moral.
We live in a society, as they say.
> the ideas exist independently of labels and must be dealt with on their own merits
But pattern recognition is a form of optimization, and labels are but filters created from reoccurring ideological patterns.
> Presumably society comes with concepts of fairness, and that it is more fair to take someone's surplus means to share with those who are running a deficit.
So your concept of fairness involves a person who has the power to assign and remove property from other people according to his judgments.
> This need not be coercive either, as there are always incentives such as tax credits and deductions so forth to spur voluntary giving.
Taxation is coercive, so offering relief from coercion as an incentive is coercion.
> I'm sure there are moral philosophers better suited to explain it than me.
There are moral philosophers in favor and opposed. You must take responsibility for your own moral judgments.
> We live in a society, as they say.
And marriage means that its not possible for a husband to rape his wife.
> But pattern recognition is a form of optimization, and labels are but filters created from reoccurring ideological patterns.
Its a lossy form of optimization and the labels have connotations that may not be justified.
> So your concept of fairness involves a person who has the power to assign and remove property from other people according to his judgments.
Yes, and that person is Uncle Sam, Marianne, the Goddess of Democracy, it is me and you, because it is be formed from societal consensus and the republican process.
> Taxation is coercive, so offering relief from coercion as an incentive is coercion.
Coercion schmoercion.
> You must take responsibility for your own moral judgments.
Certainly, in the same way a fish takes responsibility for the water it lives and breathes in.
> And marriage means that its not possible for a husband to rape his wife.
Your entire stance is that marriage is unjust because it can be abused. While I'm arguing that abusive marriages do not necessarily form the majority, nor does it invalidate the concept.
> Its a lossy form of optimization and the labels have connotations that may not be justified.
> Yes, and that person is Uncle Sam, Marianne, the Goddess of Democracy, it is me and you, because it is be formed from societal consensus and the republican process.
Good, then you’ll have no objection to me helping myself to your surplus. For “the good of society.”
> Coercion schmoercion.
Its interesting how people are often quite concerned with someone else’s perceived lack of things, but references to someone being a victim of violence are dismissed.
> Certainly, in the same way a fish takes responsibility for the water it lives and breathes in.
The fish didn’t try to justify his aquatic lifestyle by reference to moral philosophers.
> Your entire stance is that marriage is unjust because it can be abused. While I'm arguing that abusive marriages do not necessarily form the majority, nor does it invalidate the concept.
My entire stance is that a moral wrong doesn’t become acceptable on the basis of someone asserting it as an integral component of some other thing. Theft/robbery doesn’t become ok because you believe it to be necessary or good for society, and rape doesn’ become ok because the victim is married to the perpetrator.
> I'm no audiophile.
Just deal with the arguments as presented rather than trying to link them back to some ideology as a convenient means of dismissal.
> Good, then you’ll have no objection to me helping myself to your surplus. For “the good of society.”
I don't evade taxes, so you're welcome to my surplus.
> Its interesting how people are often quite concerned with someone else’s perceived lack of things, but references to someone being a victim of violence are dismissed.
By all means, please expound upon the victims of violence caused by taxpaying in modern day America. Are you referring to those flag fringe-watching sovereign citizens and tax protesters still up in arms over the 16th amendment? Freemen of the land unjustly persecuted for courtroom creativity? Wesley Snipes?
> The fish didn’t try to justify his aquatic lifestyle by reference to moral philosophers.
Indeed, for the fish is far more wiser for not getting sucked into fruitless interminable debates with unyielding ideologues.
> a moral wrong doesn’t become acceptable on the basis of someone asserting it as an integral component of some other thing
Then you'll have to provide your alternative to taxation, and indeed your alternative to governments or societies, as those can't really exist beyond taxes, at least until we achieve a post-scarcity society.
Incidentally, I should note that being against the principle of taxation not only precludes income taxes, but sales taxes and other consumption taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, tariffs, public tolls. Even if I was to suggest a revolutionarily different society- say a maximal Georgist world where the land value tax literally was the single tax levied to fund government and alleviate inequality- you would call it theft and thus NASA would continue to go unfunded.
> Just deal with the arguments as presented rather than trying to link them back to some ideology as a convenient means of dismissal.
"Taxation is theft" is a meme well-known to the internet, and this conversation we are having has been repeated over and over uncountable times. Neither of us represent original ideas. We are just rehashing the same unanswerable debate many men have had before us.
To bring up technology into this discussion- memoization can be a way to expedite a solution.
> I don't evade taxes, so you're welcome to my surplus.
The taxes were already accounted for, my claim is on top of what you already contributed.
> By all means, please expound upon the victims of violence caused by taxpaying in modern day America.
Its all very simple, if you don’t give them what they want, they threaten you at first and then they come take what they want.
> Are you referring to
This isn’t helpful.
> Then you'll have to provide your alternative to taxation,
Its the same as my alternative to rape. Namely, abolition.
> and indeed your alternative to governments or societies, as those can't really exist beyond taxes, at least until we achieve a post-scarcity society.
I thought you were familiar with alternative viewpoints? When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? If your society is dependent on violence and coercion, then perhaps your society shouldn’t exist.
> Incidentally, I should note that being against the principle of taxation not only precludes income taxes, but sales taxes and other consumption taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, tariffs, public tolls.
Don’t stop there, I’m also opposed to bank robbery, grand theft auto, petty theft, burglary, larceny, fraud, theft by conversion, and rapine. You get a lot for your trouble when you give up aggressive violence.
> you would call it theft and thus NASA would continue to go unfunded.
I’m fine with NASA relying on voluntary sources of funding and ceasing to extort the working class.
> "Taxation is theft" is a meme well-known to the internet, and this conversation we are having has been repeated over and over uncountable times. Neither of us represent original ideas. We are just rehashing the same unanswerable debate many men have had before us.
If you think the debate is unanswerable then perhaps you would enjoy something else more. For my part, the only way to find an answer is to have the debate. Furthermore in my experience these debates tend to get derailed by people pattern-matching their interlocutor’s response to something they feel more comfortable responding to and in the process eliding nuanced arguments in favor of rehashing things that haven’t even been mentioned. Either “taxation is theft” or “taxation is not theft” (or some more compicated relation between ‘taxation’ and ‘theft’), but in no case does “‘taxation is theft’ is a libertarian idea” get use closer to a resolution.
> memoization can be a way to expedite a solution.
> The taxes were already accounted for, my claim is on top of what you already contributed.
Not according to you, as you view taxes as inherently illegitimate. Though if you have a Patreon or GoFundMe to validate your claim then by all means.
> Its all very simple, if you don’t give them what they want, they threaten you at first and then they come take what they want.
If you don't wear clothes, you'd be arrested for public indecency.
> You get a lot for your trouble when you give up aggressive violence.
Tell it to the Iroquois, sadly.
> If your society is dependent on violence and coercion, then perhaps your society shouldn’t exist.
Then say you don't believe in society.
> You get a lot for your trouble when you give up aggressive violence.
Then why not give away property, as well? There are arguments to be made that private property violates the NAP.
> For my part, the only way to find an answer is to have the debate.
There really isn't an answer to be had in a debate, because fundamentally both sides are operating from stances so alien from one another to essentially be in different languages. "Taxation is theft" and "taxation is not theft" is not really meaningful in this context, as there is no agreed upon definition of what theft is. Despite its unanswerable nature, it is still quite enjoyable.
> Not according to you, as you view taxes as inherently illegitimate. Though if you have a Patreon or GoFundMe to validate your claim then by all means.
I’m responding to taxes the way you responded to my request for some of your surplus. You’re asserting you already paid taxes, you don’t get to decide how much tax you pay.
> If you don't wear clothes, you'd be arrested for public indecency.
I concede that laws requiring clothing are akin to taxation in that one group of people imposes their values on another group without their consent.
> Then say you don't believe in society.
I’m fine with society, I disagree with you that taxation is necessary for society.
> Then why not give away property, as well? There are arguments to be made that private property violates the NAP.
Property is a consequence of animalian territorial instincts and human tool-using instincts. If someone can articulate a coherent vision of a property-less society, others are welcome to join them.
Mostly the problem is that the people who challenge notions of property rights seem to be motivated by the prospect of obtaining the property of others who would prefer to retain it. In essence, they don’t have a problem with property, but with certain people’s ownership of certain things because they would rather that other people own those same things.
> Despite its unanswerable nature, it is still quite enjoyable.
> You’re asserting you already paid taxes, you don’t get to decide how much tax you pay.
Neither do you, let's get this proposal to the legislature.
> I concede that laws requiring clothing are akin to taxation in that one group of people imposes their values on another group without their consent.
Perhaps the same can be said of all laws.
> I disagree with you that taxation is necessary for society.
It's voluntaryism, then. The onus is on you to advance an alternative model and light a candle, rather than just calling taxation theft and cursing the darkness.
> If someone can articulate a coherent vision of a property-less society, others are welcome to join them.
As with taxes.
> In essence, they don’t have a problem with property, but with certain people’s ownership of certain things because they would rather that other people own those same things.
Not so with Proudhon, the originator of the phrase. His take was that those who owned those properties had no right to the wealth generated by those properties if the labor was undertaken by others. That is, rentier wealth via property was theft.
> I now saw that Bruenig's use of Proudhon's phrase "property is theft" made perfect sense from the perspective of an evolutionary theory of morality when "property" is defined as ownership by people who do not work yet become wealthier than the people from whom rent is collected.
> Neither do you, let's get this proposal to the legislature.
I’m representing the interests of society to you, the same as the legislature. You’re no more entitled to say “no” to me as either of us is to say “no” to them.
> Perhaps the same can be said of all laws.
Perhaps this idea of consent and aggression could lead us to a way of making laws that do not impose values on people without their consent.
> The onus is on you to advance an alternative model and light a candle, rather than just calling taxation theft and cursing the darkness.
I’m identifying the same model as we used when we abolished slavery and marital rape. The model is already here, awaiting critical feedback. So far the only criticism is that people aren’t going to be able to avail themselves of other people’s property.
> As with taxes.
The problem is that people impose taxes on people who have not consented. That is to say that crime exists, independent of the understanding that it is crime. Right now I’m working to show you that it is in fact crime, so that you can stop enabling the criminals.
> Not so with Proudhon, the originator of the phrase. His take was that those who owned those properties had no right to the wealth generated by those properties if the labor was undertaken by others. That is, rentier wealth via property was theft.
Unfortunately thats an occasion of Proudhon dictating to others what they may and may not do with their property. In essence, Proudhon wishes to exert property rights over other people’s property by forbidding certain relations. Clearly this is self-contradictory and not a basis upon which to reject rents on capital.
> when "property" is defined as ownership by people who do not work yet become wealthier than the people from whom rent is collected.
Thats not how property is defined; and its not surprising that people who collect rent on capital often accumulate more than people who sell their labor. Its fine for someone to think thats immoral, they are free to explain why they think it is immoral, and likwewise they are free to educate themselves and realize that restricting rent on capital because of its superior productivity impoverishes society by preventing society from accessing means of superior productivity. Capital collects higher rents than laborers receive as wages: then let laborers own capital and collect their own rents. Quite naturally the market has already commodified the ownership of capital and made it available to the meanest of laborers.
> You’re no more entitled to say “no” to me as either of us is to say “no” to them.
Unlike the legislature, I did not elect you, nor did I swear an oath to a constitution that empowers you.
> Perhaps this idea of consent and aggression could lead us to a way of making laws that do not impose values on people without their consent.
What makes taxation so much more objectionable than any other law? The vast majority of which you never consented to, and are backed by no more aggression than tax law? How many drones does the IRS have?
> The model is already here, awaiting critical feedback. So far the only criticism is that people aren’t going to be able to avail themselves of other people’s property.
You are imposing a model upon a category that does not apply.
> The problem is that people impose taxes on people who have not consented.
Again, you can say that about any other law that has been agreed upon a priori.
> In essence, Proudhon wishes to exert property rights over other people’s property by forbidding certain relations. Clearly this is self-contradictory and not a basis upon which to reject rents on capital.
By what basis is it self-contradictory? By what higher authority do you define the acceptable relations with regards to property rights? Is someone allowed to set fire to his house, so that all his neighbor's homes downwind are also consumed by conflagration? If you say no, then you have already begun to impose limits of what is acceptable or not to do with one's property.
> Thats not how property is defined
According to Proudhon, "[t]here are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. 'Possession,' says Duranton, 'is a matter of fact, not of right.' Toullier: 'Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact.' The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors."
> realize that restricting rent on capital because of its superior productivity impoverishes society by preventing society from accessing means of superior productivity
Regardless of the debatable effects of rent, Proudhon would argue that property is backed by force, which makes it inherently a product of violence and aggression. The same regime that forces you to pay taxes is the same regime that uses those taxes to safeguard property and the rents acquired through property; indeed, often force is also used by the state to accumulate property for its favored oligarchs and the conformists who support the state.
> Unlike the legislature, I did not elect you, nor did I swear an oath to a constitution that empowers you.
So you would agree with me that its immoral to collect taxes from someone who has neither voted for you not sworn an oath of loyalty? As opposed to the current system where the winner of the election exerts authority over the entire populace.
> What makes taxation so much more objectionable than any other law?
Its a mandate to appropriate someone else’s property. Its nonconsensual and results in one party benefitting at the expense of the other. The law codifies a differential status: a person who is required to produce value, and a person who is allowed to claim that value. The amount of the value is decided by the person claiming it, not the person providing it. Essantially this is a statutory codification of parasitism, Whereas an acceptable law, such as prohibitions against murder codifies conduct between peers (people with the same status). The law against murder says no one is allowed to murder, the law permitting taxation says one person pays and another person collects. Clearly this is abuse, just like a law specifying who we were allowed to murder.
> You are imposing a model upon a category that does not apply.
I’m not following. It seems like you’re pretending that its not possible to do without taxation without having identified any difficulties. I understand that taxation is literally what you want, that is to be able to avail yourself of other people’s money. I’m just not convinced that we would lose anything by choosing not to allow that.
> By what basis is it self-contradictory?
On the basis that he dictates acceptable use for a piece of property, which is exerting property rights. How come I’m not allowed to rent my machines, by Proudhon is allowed to tell me what I can do with my machines? Proudhon isn’t opposed to private property, he wants all the private property to belong to him.
> By what higher authority do you define the acceptable relations with regards to property rights?
The nature of property rights only begets logically consistent arrangments, on this basis logically inconsistent or incoherent arrangements are not recognized.
> Is someone allowed to set fire to his house, so that all his neighbor's homes downwind are also consumed by conflagration?
Once the effects of their actions have crossed crossed the boundary of the property line, conditions have been met for other people to intervene proportionately or tender a claim for damages. If someone inteferes with his actions because they anticipate the effects, then they incur liability for their inteference with his property. The specifics would depend on how the parties to the dispute felt about their particular circumstances. In essence, peer-to-peer dispute resolution.
> If you say no, then you have already begun to impose limits of what is acceptable or not to do with one's property.
The limits are other people’s property.
> According to Proudhon
Why would I or anyone else allow Proudhon to dictate the nature of property to us?
> Regardless of the debatable effects of rent, Proudhon would argue that property is backed by force, which makes it inherently a product of violence and aggression.
This is typical of the confused thinking that comes from many of these property revisionists. Property is a social arrangement and would be impossible to sustain by force in the absence of a suitable social environment. While it is true that property rights are usually/often enforced with force or the threat of force, characterizing this as aggression commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Its not aggression unless tou already agree that property is illegitimate.
So when you find a person who thinks property is illegitimate, try a simple experiment. Wait until they are eating then take some food from their plate. Better yet, get the food out of their refrigerator and put it in yours. When they object, remind them that property is illegitimate. When they distinguish between the property that they want to own, and the property that they don’t want others to own, remind them that property is a mutual social agreement and inform them that you decline to recognize their proposed version of the agreement, in exactly the same way as they decline to recognize the right of a landlord to rent out an apartment, or whatever.
> The same regime that forces you to pay taxes is the same regime that uses those taxes to safeguard property and the rents acquired through property;
Yes, its literally a protection racket. Which is why its so depressing for people to defend the protection racket when it extorts the working class (taxes) and then turn around and assert that the working class doesn’t deserve to own anything anyway because “property is a system of oppression used to oppress the working class.”
> indeed, often force is also used by the state to accumulate property for its favored oligarchs and the conformists who support the state.
Yes, and this is why we oppose taxation. This behavior is justified using the exact same arguments as you have made and I have responded to in this interesting and gratifying discussion.
Thanks for your replies and thanks for enduring the downthread squeeze with me.
> So you would agree with me that its immoral to collect taxes from someone who has neither voted for you not sworn an oath of loyalty? As opposed to the current system where the winner of the election exerts authority over the entire populace.
The winner of the election is someone all citizens have indirectly sworn oaths of loyalties vis-a-vis the Constitution.
> Its nonconsensual and results in one party benefitting at the expense of the other.
Again, this is the same as nearly every other law in existence. When did you consent to laws governing public decency?
> Whereas an acceptable law, such as prohibitions against murder codifies conduct between peers (people with the same status).
What makes laws against murder acceptable? When did you consent to them?
> Essantially this is a statutory codification of parasitism
Right, like rentiership.
> Clearly this is abuse, just like a law specifying who we were allowed to murder.
The state holds a monopoly on sanctioned murder, via warfare and the death penalty. If your moral system believes the right to life to be more important than the right to property, surely those are of higher priority than taxation.
> its not possible to do without taxation without having identified any difficulties
No, the issue is your comparison of taxation to marital rape is a non sequitur explained by aforementioned reasons. Furthermore, the existence of a model for abolition does not mean there is a model for its replacement.
> The nature of property rights only begets logically consistent arrangments, on this basis logically inconsistent or incoherent arrangements are not recognized.
Who dictates the nature of property rights? Who determines what is logical?
> conditions have been met for other people to intervene proportionately or tender a claim for damages
That is steering dangerously into the territory of justifying taxation, on the basis of wealth inequality has detrimental affects for society. If you argue that it is harmful to destroy one's property in such a way that it negatively affects others', then you open the door to claiming that it is harmful to hoard one's earnings.
> Why would I or anyone else allow Proudhon to dictate the nature of property to us?
In the context of a discussion that mentions Proudhon, a clarification of his intentions is pertinent.
> So when you find a person who thinks property is illegitimate, try a simple experiment.
This sounds exactly applicable for someone who thinks taxation is illegitimate.
> Which is why its so depressing for people to defend the protection racket when it extorts the working class (taxes)
That is an argument to reforming a system so it doesn't act as a protection racket, but is instead progressive and correctly redistributes wealth in a way guided by fairness and ability and that is acceptable by all parties.
> assert that the working class doesn’t deserve to own anything anyway because “property is a system of oppression used to oppress the working class.”
But I don't actually believe in Proudhon.
> Yes, and this is why we oppose taxation.
So, if you oppose taxation, then you should also oppose property.
> Thanks for your replies and thanks for enduring the downthread squeeze with me.
Anytime. Here's to many more posts in this productive conversation.
> The winner of the election is someone all citizens have indirectly sworn oaths of loyalties vis-a-vis the Constitution.
Respectfully, this is nonsense. The constitution is not an oath, citizens have not sworn to it, and you have yet to substantiate its moral authority. Its just a document that doesn’t support what you’re claiming about it.
> Again, this is the same as nearly every other law in existence. When did you consent to laws governing public decency?
It is not the same as laws that prohibit crimes against persons, and I already conceded that public decency laws are analogous to taxation.
> Who dictates the nature of property rights? Who determines what is logical?
The nature of property rights is constituted by the human instinct for territory and assignation of the same innate moral value to all humans is the equilibrium result of repeated negotiations. As for logical thought, it is the emergent result of a species competing for resources in a universe with objective facts. Real-world logical consistency creates circumstances for creatures with brains that comprehend logic to make productive inferences about the world.
> That is steering dangerously into the territory of justifying taxation, on the basis of wealth inequality has detrimental affects for society.
Not at all. What I described is a process that individuals do with each other. If you feel that you have a claim on the basis of wealth inequality, then you’re free to tender that claim to whoever’s massive wealth is the cause of the alleged wrong against you. That gives you an opportunity to show damages, so you can substantiate your claim against the person whose wealth was so cruel to dare to not belong to you.
> If you argue that it is harmful to destroy one's property in such a way that it negatively affects others', then you open the door to claiming that it is harmful to hoard one's earnings.
You missed the point. Its not harmful for him to destroy his property. Its harmful for him to destroy others property. His act of burning his own house is fine. Whatever he does that affects other people is up to them to decided if they are fine with it or not. No one is arguing that he can’t (not permitted) burn his own house period. He can’t (is not per itted to) burn other people’s houses (against their wishes) period; even if the technique he uses to burn other people’s houses would be permitted otherwise.
> This sounds exactly applicable for someone who thinks taxation is illegitimate.
How? You’re already taking food off my plate, thats what taxation is.
> That is an argument to reforming a system so it doesn't act as a protection racket, but is instead progressive and correctly redistributes wealth
No, its merely an argument against the protection racket. You don’t get to bring in your own terrible system to replace another terrible system. We have agreed the protection racket is bad, now we get rid of that, we’re not putting you in charge of a protection racket so you can run it according to your preferences.
> in a way guided by fairness and ability and that is acceptable by all parties.
Well if you’re proposing taxes be opt-in, or even voluntary, then that changes everything. If taxes required consent then they would be fine.
> So, if you oppose taxation, then you should also oppose property.
Absolutely not, what part was unclear? I oppose the state expropriating people by force. How does that imply that I should oppose property?
> Its just a document that doesn’t support what you’re claiming about it.
Those who abide from it tacitly support the elected government, of which the people have delegated the powers of taxation to. And the constitution holds the ability to collect taxes, even prior to the 16th amendment.
> and I already conceded that public decency laws are analogous to taxation
And they are but the iceberg's tip of laws that are analogous to taxation.
> The nature of property rights is constituted by the human instinct for territory and assignation of the same innate moral value to all humans is the equilibrium result of repeated negotiations.
You can say the same about slavery.
> Real-world logical consistency creates circumstances for creatures with brains that comprehend logic to make productive inferences about the world.
And yet taxes are ubiquitous. So what does that say about the human ability to comprehend logic?
> If you feel that you have a claim on the basis of wealth inequality, then you’re free to tender that claim to whoever’s massive wealth is the cause of the alleged wrong against you.
Right, as in the case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.
> He can’t (is not per itted to) burn other people’s houses (against their wishes) period; even if the technique he uses to burn other people’s houses would be permitted otherwise.
Correct, and if it is shown that inequality caused by lack of taxation leads to the burning of other peoples' homes, then it would demonstrate that hoarding is functionally equivalent of burning your own home in a dense neighborhood.
> How? You’re already taking food off my plate, thats what taxation is.
That food on your plate was taken from someone else.
> You don’t get to bring in your own terrible system to replace another terrible system.
On what basis is that choice invalidated?
> If taxes required consent then they would be fine.
Taxes are consented, because unless one protests the tax overtly, evades the tax covertly, rejects one's citizenship, etc. then one is tacitly consenting to the state quo. That is as naturally, inevitably, and carelessly done as those who would reject property rights thoughtlessly and jealously guard the food on their own plates. To argue that society, which is a complex, interlocking, inelegant, flawed, ridiculous, teetering system is some sort of pure construct of logic where you can argue away one important component, while ignoring your own ineluctable benefiting from that component, is hypocrisy and folly.
Perhaps one can imagine a society where every single government service corresponds 1:1 to a tax. Maybe that is the society we should be working to build. Complete transparency and voluntarism. I see nothing wrong with that. But we don't live in that society yet. In the meantime, every time you are not getting your home invaded by a foreign power or by criminal gangs, every time your property is kept safe from fire, every time you type a letter over an information system created by public funding and powered by public utilities, you are consenting to your tax dollars guaranteeing your own life and livelihood. If you call taxes theft, then maybe you should complain about getting all of those public services you never consented to receiving in the first place.
If you do, then you have the right to exit. And so we come full circle.
> I oppose the state expropriating people by force. How does that imply that I should oppose property?
The state preserves property in the same nature that it expropriate taxes, through the monopoly of force. I think that's what Proudhon is getting at. The application of force through abstracted definitions of concepts of taxation or property are less offensive to me than say, government blatantly committing violence through war or covert action or police brutality, but it does seem that you and Proudhon share similar obsessions and thus methodologies of perceiving the world, and thus a compatible framework for discussion.
That would be nonsensical. We prohibit slavery on the exact same basis as we recognize the immorality of taxation.
> And yet taxes are ubiquitous. So what does that say about the human ability to comprehend logic?
We know that the arguments are not logical, which is why taxation is coercive.
> That food on your plate was taken from someone else.
I obtained it through voluntary exchange. If the title is encumbered then that’s a reason for someone to tender a claim. Regardless I’m not convinced, I don’t survive on the basis of taxation. So I diagree and assert that my food was not taken from some one else.
> On what basis is that choice invalidated?
The same basis we rejected the last system.
> Taxes are consented, because unless one protests the tax overtly, evades the tax covertly, rejects one's citizenship, etc. then one is tacitly consenting to the state quo.
Not at all. I’m subject to violence for those things. Taxation is coercive. Consent cannot be obtained through coercion.
> That is as naturally, inevitably, and carelessly done as those who would reject property rights thoughtlessly and jealously guard the food on their own plates. To argue that society, which is a complex, interlocking, inelegant, flawed, ridiculous, teetering system is some sort of pure construct of logic where you can argue away one important component, while ignoring your own ineluctable benefiting from that component, is hypocrisy and folly.
I never said that, I just observed the logical flaws in a particular concept of society.
> Perhaps one can imagine a society where every single government service corresponds 1:1 to a tax. Maybe that is the society we should be working to build. Complete transparency and voluntarism. I see nothing wrong with that. But we don't live in that society yet.
If you think its a worthy ideal, then you can choose to pursue it.
> In the meantime, every time you are not getting your home invaded by a foreign power or by criminal gangs, every time your property is kept safe from fire, every time you type a letter over an information system created by public funding and powered by public utilities, you are consenting to your tax dollars guaranteeing your own life and livelihood.
Thats nonsensical. One might as well call you a pickpocket if I were to steal a wallet and use to buy you ice cream.
> If you call taxes theft, then maybe you should complain about getting all of those public services you never consented to receiving in the first place.
We do. We would like the busibodies to stop doing things they want, that we do not want, and then telling us it is for our own good. We are tired of having to bid for services on a market where we must compete with bureaucrats who spend our own money to compete with us.
Much has been written about the crowding out effect of government spending in markets.
> If you do, then you have the right to exit. And so we come full circle.
The problem with exercising that right is that the people who coerce taxes do not recognize the right of exit, and so they use threats and violence to prevent it.
> The state preserves property in the same nature that it expropriate taxes, through the monopoly of force.
Property is antecedent to state protection. We’re find with waiving state protection if it means no longer having taxes expropriated from us.
> I think that's what Proudhon is getting at.
Proudhon is wrong. Property is a social arrangement that is sustained through mutual participation. Taxes are extorted unilaterally.
> The application of force through abstracted definitions of concepts of taxation or property are less offensive to me than say, government blatantly committing violence through war or covert action or police brutality,
It is less offensive, thats why its a more effective means of appropriating value from people who are vulnerable.
> it does seem that you and Proudhon share similar obsessions and thus methodologies of perceiving the world, and thus a compatible framework for discussion.
Proudhon is mistaken about the nature of property. It’s a social arrangement that exists between persons. The government claimed the power to ajudicate disputes, and since then greedy people abuse that power to violate property rights. This power that is abused is the same power thatis used to collect taxes and violate people’s rights. Property rights are logically antecedent to this.
> We prohibit slavery on the exact same basis as we recognize the immorality of taxation.
The human instinct for territory leads to slavery.
> We know that the arguments are not logical
Who is we?
> The same basis we rejected the last system.
No one has rejected taxation as a concept other than yourself.
> Consent cannot be obtained through coercion.
By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain punitive measures. In fact, it can be extrapolated that all of society is coercive, as the societal contract is assumed pre-birth and never formally consented to, and is subject to violence at every level.
> I never said that, I just observed the logical flaws in a particular concept of society.
You did, because you are treating taxation as a critique of pure reason, rather than a concrete policy that exists outside of a vacuum.
> If you think its a worthy ideal, then you can choose to pursue it.
Who says I'm not?
> Thats nonsensical. One might as well call you a pickpocket if I were to steal a wallet and use to buy you ice cream.
It's as nonsensical as you demanding to receive national defense or the ability to drive on public roads while rejecting taxation.
> We are tired of having to bid for services on a market where we must compete with bureaucrats who spend our own money to compete with us.
And you can do all of that without holding the uselessly extremist position of all taxation is theft!
> Much has been written about the crowding out effect of government spending in markets.
Without having to resort to rejecting taxation as a concept from first principles.
> the people who coerce taxes do not recognize the right of exit
No, the problem with the right of exit is that every single society on earth recognizes the necessity of sustaining through taxation. Perhaps you can try exiting to terra nullis or seasteading in international waters. But any society you build will inevitably require taxation at a certain scale. At the very least then you will have accomplished a political experiment to validate your beliefs on the non-necessity of taxes.
> Property is antecedent to state protection.
Property is still dependent upon state protection, as again the institutions of national defense and public courts demonstrate.
> Property is a social arrangement that is sustained through mutual participation. Taxes are extorted unilaterally.
Taxation is likewise sustained through mutual participation. Contrariwise, property can also be extorted unilaterally, as in the case of rents.
> thats why its a more effective means of appropriating value from people who are vulnerable
Tell it to the vulnerable who are dependent upon social services funded by taxation.
> The government claimed the power to ajudicate disputes
That power was freely given by individuals to the government, as there is a need for a neutral third party and a higher authority to appeal to. Without an adjudicative force, the only resort is might makes right.
> Property rights are logically antecedent to this.
Property must originate from somewhere, which would be nature or the public commons. To acquire and then retain property thus requires the use of force. At least according to Proudhon's definition. If you are to accuse all sorts of common concepts of originating in force and violence, then you are living in Proudhon's world. You only have a different bugbear from him.
> The human instinct for territory leads to slavery.
Negative. Territory is things, not people.
> By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain punitive measures.
This is not true. You’ve neglected to consider laws that prohibit without specifying consequences for violation. You’re also neglecting to consider laws against coercion.
> In fact, it can be extrapolated that all of society is coercive, as the societal contract is assumed pre-birth and never formally consented to, and is subject to violence at every level.
Now you’re understanding why a “social contract” can’t be used to justify violating someone’s rights.
> Who says I'm not?
You’re arguing against it with me right here.
> It's as nonsensical as you demanding to receive national defense or the ability to drive on public roads while rejecting taxation
I haven’t demanded national defense, and roads predate the government that expropriated them from the commons. I shouldn’t need permission from bureaucrats to use the roads.
> And you can do all of that without holding the uselessly extremist position of all taxation is theft!
You’re losing the plot. Bureaucrats taxing and spending necessarily means that I’m competing, with bureaucrats, for goods, while the bureaucrats are using my own money to compete with me.
> No, the problem with the right of exit is that every single society on earth recognizes the necessity of sustaining through taxation.
So you agree that I do not have the right of exit.
> But any society you build will inevitably require taxation at a certain scale.
[citation needed]
> Property is still dependent upon state protection
No, it is not.
> Taxation is likewise sustained through mutual participation.
No, taxation is sustained through asymmetric threat of violence.
> Contrariwise, property can also be extorted unilaterally, as in the case of rents.
Rent is not a unilateral transaction, neither is it extortion.
> Tell it to the vulnerable who are dependent upon social services funded by taxation.
Those people well know that they are dependent on the scraps that the oligarchs throw once said oligarchs have ate their fill from the working class.
> That power was freely given by individuals to the government
How can some individuals give power over the rest of us to the government?
> Without an adjudicative force, the only resort is might makes right.
You think the government is an alternative to might makes right? Interesting.
> Property must originate from somewhere, which would be nature or the public commons.
Unowned property becomes owned through homesteading, owned property changes hands through voluntary transfer.
> To acquire and then retain property thus requires the use of force.
This does not follow from anything you have said, and indeed force is not required to acquire or retain property in all circumstances. Force is a primary means of retaining property when someone attempts to take it from the owner.
> At least according to Proudhon's definition. If you are to accuse all sorts of common concepts of originating in force and violence, then you are living in Proudhon's world. You only have a different bugbear from him.
I’ve made a solid case that does not rely on Proudhon (whatever his merits).
It is also a human instinct to treat people as things. Thus, we appear to be creating a society that can override baser instincts. Anti-propertarians would thus be claiming to transcend those instincts in the name of greater justice, in the same nature as you are claiming to transcend this instincts to abolish taxation.
> You’ve neglected to consider laws that prohibit without specifying consequences for violation.
Those laws are clearly in the minority.
> Now you’re understanding why a “social contract” can’t be used to justify violating someone’s rights.
Correct, and it means that your problem is with the whole of the social contract, and taxation is but a fraction of what it entails.
> You’re arguing against it with me right here.
I argue because I choose to, not because it actually reveals anything about my actual opinions or convictions.
> roads predate the government that expropriated them from the commons.
Much like private property.
> I shouldn’t need permission from bureaucrats to use the roads.
Then you are stealing from the actual parties who built those roads and maintain them.
> You’re losing the plot.
Tu quoque.
> Bureaucrats taxing and spending necessarily means that I’m competing, with bureaucrats, for goods, while the bureaucrats are using my own money to compete with me.
Yes, yes, the issue of private competition with public services does exist. All of which can be explored without denying the fundamental principle of taxation, as aforementioned ad nauseam.
> So you agree that I do not have the right of exit.
Sure it is. Do you claim to be able to protect it if a foreign power assaults it? Can you take on an entire criminal cartel?
> Rent is not a unilateral transaction, neither is it extortion.
Rent is unilaterally determined by the rentier, who establishes a coercive rent regime due to monopoly ownership over the property in question. Thus, it is extortion because the other party is inherently at a disadvantage.
> You think the government is an alternative to might makes right? Interesting.
Even most minarchists who want only a night-watchman state will agree upon the necessity of court systems and law enforcement to enforce contracts. You are free to advance an alternative, if you'd like.
> Unowned property becomes owned through homesteading, owned property changes hands through voluntary transfer.
Homesteading is established through force, and voluntary transfer exist along relations that are backed by the violent force that is society.
> Force is a primary means of retaining property when someone attempts to take it from the owner.
Because in a Hobbesian state of nature all property is up for grabs, property is inherently in need of protection, and thus force is always on the table.
> I’ve made a solid case that does not rely on Proudhon
It certainly doesn't, but your case lives in the same moral universe as Proudhon's does, and has about as much relation to reality as his.
Property/territoriality is not an instinct to treat people as things.
Your desire to override my baser instincts is misplaced. Concentrate on overriding your own base instincts, then you will be less inclined to expropriate from people and redistribute the wealth of others according to your subjective preferences.
I’m glad you’ve conceded that coercion is not a necessary component of laws.
It is true that private property also predates the government.
I’m glad you’ve conceded your earlier point about the right of exit.
You’ve yet to establish the necessity of taxation.
Rent is not unilaterally determined by the rentier. Its negotiated between the rentier and the renter.
How do you describe a government in a way that the government isn’t an instance of “might makes right”?
Homesteading is not established by force.
Voluntary exchange cuts across relations that are violently enforced by society.
Hobbes was mistaken about a state of nature.
Your fixation on Proudhon is detracting from your efforts to reply to my arguments.
Finally, property doesn’t require the state because property can exist in the absence of a state. The fact that states can expropriate people is the basis for this entire argument. Essentially you’re saying if I didn’t have a state expropriating me, I’d have a state expropriating me. Well, who is expropriating the state? Why not?
> Concentrate on overriding your own base instincts, then you will be less inclined to expropriate from people and redistribute the wealth of others according to your subjective preferences.
Who says those are my actual instincts? For all you know, I completely agree with your positions on taxation and am merely testing how well you advance our mutual beliefs. For all intents and purposes, neither of us exist beyond this conversation. One must transcend the baser instinct of assuming one's opponent's personality in order to debate with pure logic.
> I’m glad you’ve conceded that coercion is not a necessary component of laws.
For all intents and purposes, they constitute a vast majority of laws.
> It is true that private property also predates the government.
Source?
> I’m glad you’ve conceded your earlier point about the right of exit.
How did I concede?
> You’ve yet to establish the necessity of taxation.
You've yet to advance an alternative mode of government that exists without it.
> Rent is not unilaterally determined by the rentier. Its negotiated between the rentier and the renter.
In the same way that a monopolistic market still creates contracts despite power and information asymmetry, sure.
> How do you describe a government in a way that the government isn’t an instance of “might makes right”?
Social contract and free association, which is how governments are founded.
> Homesteading is not established by force.
Tell it to the Lakota.
> Voluntary exchange cuts across relations that are violently enforced by society.
Voluntary exchange is still founded on the principles of violent enforcement in the case when exchangers break contracts.
> Hobbes was mistaken about a state of nature.
And who wasn't?
> Your fixation on Proudhon is detracting from your efforts to reply to my arguments.
It's because your arguments are by similar to his.
> Essentially you’re saying if I didn’t have a state expropriating me, I’d have a state expropriating me.
And that's the crux of it. Anytime there is more than a single person, you have a state. It's states all the way down.
> Well, who is expropriating the state? Why not?
There's always a bigger state. And usually, the state itself.
> Who says those are my actual instincts? For all you know, I completely agree with your positions on taxation and am merely testing how well you advance our mutual beliefs.
I can only take your position as stated, I’m not willing to sit here an imagine that you’re secretly disagreeing with yourself ;)
> For all intents and purposes, they constitute a vast majority of laws.
All that is necessary is to establish the lack of necessity.
> Source?
Anthropology. Read about the origins of property and government.
> How did I concede?
You agreed that there are laws that don’t include coercion.
> You've yet to advance an alternative mode of government that exists without it.
I’m sure if you review the discussion you will see that I have. Its the same as the model of marriage without rape. You just remove the rape/taxation.
> In the same way that a monopolistic market still creates contracts despite power and information asymmetry, sure.
So you understand that rents are negotiated whereas taxes are extorted violently. Excellent.
> Social contract and free association,
How does free association work when you coerce taxes from people? Can people opt out this association or are they slaves to the government?
> which is how governments are founded.
Tell that to the Lakota.
> Tell it to the Lakota.
Expropriation is not homesteading.
> Voluntary exchange is still founded on the principles of violent enforcement in the case when exchangers break contracts.
No, it is not. You’re assuming contracts require violent enforcement, which is not true. The parties to the contract decide how they themselves will react when a party believes that the contract has been breached.
> And that's the crux of it. Anytime there is more than a single person, you have a state. It's states all the way down.
Thats nonsense.
> There's always a bigger state. And usually, the state itself.
There is an infinite chain of states expropriating each smaller one on into infinity? This sounds nonsensical.
Presumably society comes with concepts of fairness, and that it is more fair to take someone's surplus means to share with those who are running a deficit. This need not be coercive either, as there are always incentives such as tax credits and deductions so forth to spur voluntary giving. I'm sure there are moral philosophers better suited to explain it than me.
> And in order to maintain consensus, and order, anyone who doesn’t agree is subject to violence. No, thats not moral.
We live in a society, as they say.
> the ideas exist independently of labels and must be dealt with on their own merits
But pattern recognition is a form of optimization, and labels are but filters created from reoccurring ideological patterns.