> very basic and banal fact that taxation is a valid mechanism that a society uses to sustain itself.
Validity in this case is not a fact it is an opinion or value judgment that implies that it is moral/ethical to use coercion to extract money from citizens.
You may agree with this. You may not claim it as a fact.
> taxation as a principle is not some sort of ludicrously unjust abomination
Thats your opinion and the oligarchs who decide how tax money is spent appreciate your conformity.
> it is an opinion or value judgment that implies that it is moral/ethical to use coercion to extract money from citizens.
Sure, and it is an opinion or value judgment supported by millennia of social contract even before Enlightenment era thinkers came up with the concept of the social contract. If you're going against one of the basic mechanisms or tools for how society works, you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from.
> Thats your opinion and the oligarchs who decide how tax money is spent appreciate your conformity.
And the puritans who dictate popular morality appreciate your conformity in wearing clothing. Again, people can oppose oppressive taxes and unjust tax systems, but to argue that taxes are unnecessary is seemingly arguing against all of human society since the development of agriculture. Unless you are a believer in Modern Monetary Theory? Good of you to realize the possibilities of fiat currency.
> Sure, and it is an opinion or value judgment supported by millennia of social contract even before Enlightenment era thinkers came up with the concept of the social contract.
Yeah, so is slavery. So is monarchism. So is marital rape.
> If you're going against one of the basic mechanisms or tools for how society works, you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from.
I’ll identify myself as an anarchist for being opposed to violent coercion of resources if you will identify yourself as a criminal for being in support. Sound fair?
> And the puritans who dictate popular morality appreciate your conformity in wearing clothing.
Norms of wearing clothing are not dictated by puritans but arise and are maintained by repeated intentional participation.
> Again, people can oppose oppressive taxes and unjust tax systems,
We do. In fact we invite you to explain how any tax is just.
> but to argue that taxes are unnecessary is seemingly arguing against all of human society since the development of agriculture.
Not at all, one may as well say that arguing that slavery is immoral is arguing against all of human society since agriculture.
> Yeah, so is slavery. So is monarchism. So is marital rape.
So is property. So is language. So is symbolic thought.
> I’ll identify myself as an anarchist for being opposed to violent coercion of resources if you will identify yourself as a criminal for being in support. Sound fair?
Anarchism is an existing ideology with many school of thoughts within it. You seem to be an anarcho-capitalist, to be precise. I, of course proudly admit to being a criminal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXTt9OmJis&t=1m18s) insofar living in modern society makes criminals of us all, yourself included, even under duress.
> Norms of wearing clothing are not dictated by puritans but arise and are maintained by repeated intentional participation.
As is tax law.
> In fact we invite you to explain how any tax is just.
Because it's cheaper to provide social programs than to deal with rolling peasant revolts.
> Not at all, one may as well say that arguing that slavery is immoral is arguing against all of human society since agriculture.
And indeed so. So are you then an anarcho-primitivist? Or anti-propertarian?
I’m not convinced that it is meaningful to make that assertion. But this is fine, I’m an anarchist because I oppose coercion and you’re a criminal for supporting it.
> Because it's cheaper to provide social programs than to deal with rolling peasant revolts.
And so that makes it moral to suppress peasants with unjust taxation regimes?
> And indeed so. So are you then an anarcho-primitivist? Or anti-propertarian?
I decline to identify as a proponent of any belief system because of the harmful epistemological consequences of group identity.
> Language and symbolic thought are not opinions or value judgments.
They are according to John Zerzan.
> But this is fine, I’m an anarchist because I oppose coercion and you’re a criminal for supporting it.
Anarchism, fwiw, is not meant to be a pejorative, but a reference to an actual ideological framework, albeit a radical one. One that has both left and right variants, including the aforementioned ancaps.
> And so that makes it moral to suppress peasants with unjust taxation regimes?
No, it's moral to provide people with food and shelter, health care and education, opportunities for social advancement, funded by surplus wealth generated by a society, in a manner deemed agreeable by societal consensus, so as to create a stable social order. A just tax regime would not be taxing peasants more than nobles nor burghers.
> I decline to identify as a proponent of any belief system because of the harmful epistemological consequences of group identity.
But by crowing "taxation is theft", you have clearly virtue-signalled yourself to be a libertarian.
>> Language and symbolic thought are not opinions or value judgments.
> They are according to John Zerzan.
Thanks for this.
>> If agriculture was the original sin of History, the Fall was our descent into Symbolic forms which created a psychological removal best expressed by the use of artillery. With the epoch of History proper, beginning with the Neolithic, internal abstractions are projected outwards onto a terra nullius, a void now dedicated to the manufacture of first commodities, the domestication of animals and conflict management, in terror of the silences of a world made ancient by representation and signs. The great farming apparatus of this era mirrored institutionalized ritual and the codes of orthodox magic, which are the ancestors of surveillance technology and remote control. Division of labor lead to the great land enclosures and the dawn of the money form, nascent surplus-value with its classes of guardians, warriors, magistrates, clerics. Greek books were read in boustrophedon, which means ‘after the action of an oxen plowing a field’, each line progressing and then reversing back in a bi-directional motion, equating the patterns of informational technology with the golden gizmo of sedentary humanity. The subsequent Bronze Age saw pottery, the production of rich varieties of armaments, the complexities of credit and written script, and the formation of the great elites – and naturally, slavery. Early statecraft was far more ‘modern’ than is commonly acknowledged: banking, proto-welfare, heated toilet seats, the wide application of credit and debt enslavement (we have conveniently lost the custom of the Jubilee write-down), micro-breweries, were all part of the ancient world.
> No, it's moral to provide people with food and shelter
Then it must be immoral to take food and shelter from people. How do you then justify taxation?
> funded by surplus wealth generated by a society, in a manner deemed agreeable by societal consensus, so as to create a stable social order.
And in order to maintain consensus, and order, anyone who doesn’t agree is subject to violence. No, thats not moral.
> But by crowing "taxation is theft", you have clearly virtue-signalled yourself to be a libertarian.
> you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from.
So you continue to insist on labeling me, but the point is that the ideas exist independently of labels and must be dealt with on their own merits.
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.
Validity in this case is not a fact it is an opinion or value judgment that implies that it is moral/ethical to use coercion to extract money from citizens.
You may agree with this. You may not claim it as a fact.
> taxation as a principle is not some sort of ludicrously unjust abomination
Thats your opinion and the oligarchs who decide how tax money is spent appreciate your conformity.