4 ms·

Well, I'm not intentionally dodging, so feel free to call out what you think I'm dodging. You say "most people are raised to know that paying taxes is right. S

Well, I'm not intentionally dodging, so feel free to call out what you think I'm dodging. You say "most people are raised to know that paying taxes is right. So taxes aren't coercive right?" I agree that most people are raised to believe this, but I don't agree with it. Taxes ARE coercion. If taxation were voluntary, I believe the VAST majority of people would not pay them. Using your example, using coercion to defend yourself or your property (a case of water in this example) is in fact coercion, but it's justified. Self-defense and defense of private property are the only times when I believe coercion is justified. If you don't believe in private property, then we're just talking past each other. Do you believe in private property?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>Using your example, using coercion to defend yourself or your property (a case of water in this example) is in fact coercion, but it's justified. Self-defense and defense of private property are the only times when I believe coercion is justified. We are talking past each other a bit so let's get back on track. The quoted above is what I'm getting at. What is the moral foundation for your belief that coercion is justified in cases of property. Why is coercion justified when defending your $100 case of water but not justified when the government taxes us?
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Because I believe in private property -- the right to do as you please with your own property to the extent you are not violating someone else's person or property. Government taxation, by definition, is a violation of private property, it is not voluntary, people have no choice but to comply or be jailed. If you don't believe in private property, but instead believe in a socialist or communist society where the means of production and private property are controlled by the government, then you will not share this belief.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    But see we started off with taxes bad because coercion and coercion is bad but now we're at property is okay because property is property. My position is irrelevant because what I'm really interested in is the foundation of yours. I don't see it. I don't see where property gains some magical virtue that taxes don't which exempts it from being bad despite requiring coercion.
    - sbenitoj 9y ago
      Because property rights are inextricably linked with human rights -- if you believe in human rights, you also have to believe in property rights. You can't have one without the other, this short essay does a good job of explaining why the two are inextricably linked: https://mises.org/blog/property-rights-and-human-rights https://mises.org/blog/property-rights-and-human-rights
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        There is no reason that human rights require property. Let's take free speech. Rothbard notes that: The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself But property rights don't guarantee you an assembly hall, hired or owned. In fact property rights explicitly give the owners of an assembly hall the right to deny you. Okay, so you want to build one, well here too property rights give landowners the right to deny you access to any land. Timber and concrete companies can choose not to sell to you, the effect here is that, to you, property has simply granted the right to refusal, the right for others to refuse to allow you to speak. Without property rights, who can exclude you from the assembly hall? No one. In fact property rights here conflict with a right to free speech. Also can I take this as confirmation that we are moving on from coercion? That you agree that coercion is not, in itself, bad?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>Using your example, using coercion to defend yourself or your property (a case of water in this example) is in fact coercion, but it's justified. Self-defense and defense of private property are the only times when I believe coercion is justified. We are talking past each other a bit so let's get back on track. The quoted above is what I'm getting at. What is the moral foundation for your belief that coercion is justified in cases of property. Why is coercion justified when defending your $100 case of water but not justified when the government taxes us?

sbenitoj 9y ago
Because I believe in private property -- the right to do as you please with your own property to the extent you are not violating someone else's person or property. Government taxation, by definition, is a violation of private property, it is not voluntary, people have no choice but to comply or be jailed. If you don't believe in private property, but instead believe in a socialist or communist society where the means of production and private property are controlled by the government, then you will not share this belief.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  But see we started off with taxes bad because coercion and coercion is bad but now we're at property is okay because property is property. My position is irrelevant because what I'm really interested in is the foundation of yours. I don't see it. I don't see where property gains some magical virtue that taxes don't which exempts it from being bad despite requiring coercion.
  - sbenitoj 9y ago
    Because property rights are inextricably linked with human rights -- if you believe in human rights, you also have to believe in property rights. You can't have one without the other, this short essay does a good job of explaining why the two are inextricably linked: https://mises.org/blog/property-rights-and-human-rights https://mises.org/blog/property-rights-and-human-rights
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      There is no reason that human rights require property. Let's take free speech. Rothbard notes that: The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself But property rights don't guarantee you an assembly hall, hired or owned. In fact property rights explicitly give the owners of an assembly hall the right to deny you. Okay, so you want to build one, well here too property rights give landowners the right to deny you access to any land. Timber and concrete companies can choose not to sell to you, the effect here is that, to you, property has simply granted the right to refusal, the right for others to refuse to allow you to speak. Without property rights, who can exclude you from the assembly hall? No one. In fact property rights here conflict with a right to free speech. Also can I take this as confirmation that we are moving on from coercion? That you agree that coercion is not, in itself, bad?