4 ms·

> Taxation (of individuals at least ) is theft. If one person puts a gun in your face, or threatens to, and demands your money, you would have no problem seeing

> Taxation (of individuals at least ) is theft. If one person puts a gun in your face, or threatens to, and demands your money, you would have no problem seeing it so. Property is a fiction made reality by government. Society agrees to let individuals have exclusive access to particular resources based on a system of rules. One of those rules is that people pay taxes. It is not "theft", because it's part of the property system. I could just as well insist the car in your drive is "mine" and call it "theft" when you try to drive it. Presumably you have absolutely no issue with the government putting guns in other people's faces to stop them using "your" stuff. So don't complain when they try to stop you hoarding "their" stuff. If you would prefer a different set of rules, then you're free to try and enforce them yourself.

mindcrime 11y ago
Society agrees to let individuals have exclusive access to particular resources based on a system of rules. That's close, but you're missing an essential point. To the extent that we can speak about "society" in an general sense, it would be more accurate to say that "society agrees to help you defend your property rights if you play by their rules". That doesn't mean that property is a fiction that requires government or society. And by the same token, there's no reason you couldn't construct a system where everybody helps everybody else defend their property simply in terms of "mutual aid". Taxation is not an inherent property of all systems for defending property. In fact, I will continue to argue that taxation is inherently inimical to the idea of property.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  >there's no reason you couldn't construct a system where everybody helps everybody else defend their property simply in terms of "mutual aid". Are there penalties for not providing this "mutual aid"? If so, you're just describing a highly localised tax system. EDIT: And if not, I think you might find your system struggles in the presence of noticeable inequality. (Why should we protect the rich guy's stuff?) > Taxation is not an inherent property of all systems for defending property. Of course not, but it is a feature of pretty much all existing such systems. >In fact, I will continue to argue that taxation is inherently inimical to the idea of property. I believe a property system will inevitably trend towards inequality over time, because those with more money have more power, and thus greater opportunity to earn more money. Inequality makes the system less efficient at utility generation, because it diverts production towards more marginal utility improvements. In order to avoid this, you need some system of wealth redistribution.
- hga 11y ago
  And by the same token, there's no reason you couldn't construct a system where everybody helps everybody else defend their property simply in terms of "mutual aid". Just such a system existed in the English common law, and from what I've read in the early days of America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_and_cry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_and_cry

mindcrime 11y ago

Society agrees to let individuals have exclusive access to particular resources based on a system of rules. That's close, but you're missing an essential point. To the extent that we can speak about "society" in an general sense, it would be more accurate to say that "society agrees to help you defend your property rights if you play by their rules". That doesn't mean that property is a fiction that requires government or society. And by the same token, there's no reason you couldn't construct a system where everybody helps everybody else defend their property simply in terms of "mutual aid". Taxation is not an inherent property of all systems for defending property. In fact, I will continue to argue that taxation is inherently inimical to the idea of property.

aninhumer 11y ago
>there's no reason you couldn't construct a system where everybody helps everybody else defend their property simply in terms of "mutual aid". Are there penalties for not providing this "mutual aid"? If so, you're just describing a highly localised tax system. EDIT: And if not, I think you might find your system struggles in the presence of noticeable inequality. (Why should we protect the rich guy's stuff?) > Taxation is not an inherent property of all systems for defending property. Of course not, but it is a feature of pretty much all existing such systems. >In fact, I will continue to argue that taxation is inherently inimical to the idea of property. I believe a property system will inevitably trend towards inequality over time, because those with more money have more power, and thus greater opportunity to earn more money. Inequality makes the system less efficient at utility generation, because it diverts production towards more marginal utility improvements. In order to avoid this, you need some system of wealth redistribution.
hga 11y ago
And by the same token, there's no reason you couldn't construct a system where everybody helps everybody else defend their property simply in terms of "mutual aid". Just such a system existed in the English common law, and from what I've read in the early days of America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_and_cry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_and_cry