4 ms·

In most cases, it's not a problem defining what one's own wealth is. If I receive currency in private trade, that's my own wealth. The fact that the government

by aminok 10y ago

In most cases, it's not a problem defining what one's own wealth is. If I receive currency in private trade, that's my own wealth. The fact that the government needs me to surrender my privacy and disclose how much currency I received in order to be able to enforce a tax on currency transactions (e.g. an income tax) is an indication that currency received in trade is truly 'private' property. A law requiring me to hand over a share of that currency, and requiring that I be imprisoned if I do not comply, violates my human rights. The edge cases are natural resources - the most prominently example being land. But the current bevy of economic laws make no distinction between this class of property and other classes, and limit one's right to what is clearly their own wealth.

RobertoG 10y ago
There is not such thing as "clearly their own wealth" because there is not a natural right to private property but a society agreement. What you can or can't own depends on the circumstances. For instance, can you be the owner of 1000 can of food? Absolutely, if you are in the bay area, because the society there allow you that. What about an island without any other food that is inhabited by 40 other people? I doubt it very much.
- aminok 10y ago
  The right to private property is every bit as natural as the right to one's own body. Both come from the act of appropriating natural resources and converting it into something of greater value that is personally useful, and making exclusive of the resulting property. >What you can or can't own depends on the circumstances. You're confusing the act of protecting a right with the right itself. A right does not cease to exist because the law fails to protect it.
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    "Both come from the act of appropriating natural resources and converting it into something of greater value that is personally useful" Where is that written? I would like to point to you that your "private property", including your own body, could be considered as a "natural resource" ready to be exploited by other agents in the environment. I doubt that throwing copies of "Atlas Shrugged" to their heads is going to change their mind (even signed copies!).
    - aminok 10y ago
      >Where is that written? That is how property has historically been justified. Read up on property rights if you want to learn more about it. >I would like to point to you that your "private property", including your own body, could be considered as a "natural resource" ready to be exploited by other agents in the environment. The principle of property rights is that you cannot make use of natural resources that have already been appropriated and turned into someone else's property, so no, another person couldn't simply exploit my property/body under the property rights framework.
MarkMc 10y ago
I don't understand how you can have a truely private trade. If a trade depends on roads or schools or the internet or police, don't the people who provide those things have a right to share in the benefits of that trade?
- RobertoG 10y ago
  No need to appeal to roads or police, where is the money in that private deal coming from if not the state? And what it is the state if not and element (for best or worst) of how we, as a society, have chosen to organize?
  - aminok 10y ago
    You can use private currency. No need to use government issued money. Yet tax laws make no distinction between trade involving government issued currency and trade involving wholly private currencies/properties. And you're making a fallacy of composition in claiming we as a society have decided something. What you're really arguing is that the majority has decided something and that they have a right to force their will on everyone.
    - RobertoG 10y ago
      " the majority has decided something and that they have a right to force their will on everyone." Well, it's not your proposal that we organize society following your favourite principles instead?
      - aminok 10y ago
        The only principle that I want society to follow is to not rob others of their right to their person or property. Everything else can be organized through voluntary association.
antisthenes 10y ago
Natural resources, from which most current wealth is created are 'edge cases' ? And your first paragraph is pretty much "all taxes are theft", that is usually the mantra of fanatical libertarians. The economic illiteracy required to come up with your conclusions is astounding. But then I actually looked at your comment history and the pattern became clear.
- aminok 10y ago
  Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. We could charge every appropriator of natural resources a fee commensurate with the value that they are appropriating, and there would still be vast amounts of private property in the world, and that socialists would still think they have a right to forcibly redistribute. >And your first paragraph is pretty much "all taxes are theft", that is usually the mantra of fanatical libertarians. One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate. >The economic illiteracy required to come up with your conclusions is astounding. Worthless ad hominem.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    > Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. Incorrect. Buildings stand on land (natural resources) and require significant amounts of energy to be erected (natural resource). So does machinery. IP is the only thing you have going for here. How useful is IP without infrastructure and capital to support it? Is it useful, for example, to know how to make a solar panel if you have no means of producing it or extracting the metals and materials needed to make it, because that area is controlled by someone else? > One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate. No. Fanatical libertarians are a fringe group, as is evidenced by elections and the amount of ridicule they rightly garner in any factual discussion. There's no human right to "not be taxes while enjoying the benefits of infrastructure". Perhaps some libertarians' positions are more nuanced, but you wouldn't know it from their comments. > Worthless ad hominem. Worthless libertarian drivel. Calling someone illiterate or incompetent in a subject is not an ad hominem when it is based in fact. It's clearly not your area of expertise, so it's not shameful to admit so.

by aminok 10y ago

RobertoG 10y ago

There is not such thing as "clearly their own wealth" because there is not a natural right to private property but a society agreement. What you can or can't own depends on the circumstances. For instance, can you be the owner of 1000 can of food? Absolutely, if you are in the bay area, because the society there allow you that. What about an island without any other food that is inhabited by 40 other people? I doubt it very much.

aminok 10y ago
The right to private property is every bit as natural as the right to one's own body. Both come from the act of appropriating natural resources and converting it into something of greater value that is personally useful, and making exclusive of the resulting property. >What you can or can't own depends on the circumstances. You're confusing the act of protecting a right with the right itself. A right does not cease to exist because the law fails to protect it.
- RobertoG 10y ago
  "Both come from the act of appropriating natural resources and converting it into something of greater value that is personally useful" Where is that written? I would like to point to you that your "private property", including your own body, could be considered as a "natural resource" ready to be exploited by other agents in the environment. I doubt that throwing copies of "Atlas Shrugged" to their heads is going to change their mind (even signed copies!).
  - aminok 10y ago
    >Where is that written? That is how property has historically been justified. Read up on property rights if you want to learn more about it. >I would like to point to you that your "private property", including your own body, could be considered as a "natural resource" ready to be exploited by other agents in the environment. The principle of property rights is that you cannot make use of natural resources that have already been appropriated and turned into someone else's property, so no, another person couldn't simply exploit my property/body under the property rights framework.

MarkMc 10y ago

I don't understand how you can have a truely private trade. If a trade depends on roads or schools or the internet or police, don't the people who provide those things have a right to share in the benefits of that trade?

RobertoG 10y ago
No need to appeal to roads or police, where is the money in that private deal coming from if not the state? And what it is the state if not and element (for best or worst) of how we, as a society, have chosen to organize?
- aminok 10y ago
  You can use private currency. No need to use government issued money. Yet tax laws make no distinction between trade involving government issued currency and trade involving wholly private currencies/properties. And you're making a fallacy of composition in claiming we as a society have decided something. What you're really arguing is that the majority has decided something and that they have a right to force their will on everyone.
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    " the majority has decided something and that they have a right to force their will on everyone." Well, it's not your proposal that we organize society following your favourite principles instead?
    - aminok 10y ago
      The only principle that I want society to follow is to not rob others of their right to their person or property. Everything else can be organized through voluntary association.

antisthenes 10y ago

Natural resources, from which most current wealth is created are 'edge cases' ? And your first paragraph is pretty much "all taxes are theft", that is usually the mantra of fanatical libertarians. The economic illiteracy required to come up with your conclusions is astounding. But then I actually looked at your comment history and the pattern became clear.

aminok 10y ago
Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. We could charge every appropriator of natural resources a fee commensurate with the value that they are appropriating, and there would still be vast amounts of private property in the world, and that socialists would still think they have a right to forcibly redistribute. >And your first paragraph is pretty much "all taxes are theft", that is usually the mantra of fanatical libertarians. One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate. >The economic illiteracy required to come up with your conclusions is astounding. Worthless ad hominem.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. Incorrect. Buildings stand on land (natural resources) and require significant amounts of energy to be erected (natural resource). So does machinery. IP is the only thing you have going for here. How useful is IP without infrastructure and capital to support it? Is it useful, for example, to know how to make a solar panel if you have no means of producing it or extracting the metals and materials needed to make it, because that area is controlled by someone else? > One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate. No. Fanatical libertarians are a fringe group, as is evidenced by elections and the amount of ridicule they rightly garner in any factual discussion. There's no human right to "not be taxes while enjoying the benefits of infrastructure". Perhaps some libertarians' positions are more nuanced, but you wouldn't know it from their comments. > Worthless ad hominem. Worthless libertarian drivel. Calling someone illiterate or incompetent in a subject is not an ad hominem when it is based in fact. It's clearly not your area of expertise, so it's not shameful to admit so.