3 ms·

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 prope

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

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?