4 ms·

> they earned their money legally "Legally" is a vague term. What's legal today can become illegal tomorrow and vice versa. What is legal depends entirely on w

> they earned their money legally "Legally" is a vague term. What's legal today can become illegal tomorrow and vice versa. What is legal depends entirely on who gets to define and enforce the meaning of the term. That enforcement can happen in two ways. Either because individuals acknowledge that the state holds a monopoly on violence in return for lawful order through a social contract, or individuals get effectively subjected to violence coming from a stronger individual or group of individuals. > And yes, they already paid tax on said money in the country they earned them. You're appealing to a principle of fairness. However, such principle only applies if those who get to define the rules are willing to accept and enforce that principle. Either because there's a large social consensus, or because enlightened despots are in power. A universal principle of fairness does not exist. Society at large isn't rational. It's a collective that spawns irrational, often conflicting views and beliefs. And the net result is, in the best of worlds, an uneasy compromise. If the large majority of a community feels that an exit tax is a fair principle, then that's something you will have to accept unless you find a way to convince people of the opposite view.

nickpp 7y ago
> "Legally" is a vague term. "Legal" is not a vague term. What is legal at the time the money was made is pretty clearly established (in the court of law, if necessary). > That enforcement can happen in two ways. The enforcement, under the Rule of Law, happens in only one way: through the state. If you don't believe in the Rule of Law, then all this discussion is pointless. > You're appealing to a principle of fairness. No, I am appealing to the principle of The Contract. Going back and changing the terms of a contract is illegal. Under the rule of law, of course.
- CaptArmchair 7y ago
  So... Do you feel that the establishment of the Roman Empire was "illegal" as it imposed taxes and Roman rule on previously independent territories? As far as the Romans were concerned, their actions were entirely lawful. Or how about the American Revolution which was literally a conflict about taxes? As far as the British Crown was concerned, sending an expeditionary force was all about enforcing the rule of law among rebellious subjects. And if the British had won, we would now consider a short-lived Congress just a bunch of irresponsible rebels. How about the Civil War? Slave owners have balked for a long time over Abolition violating their rights; yet, today nobody in their right mind would consider slavery as something that should to be legalized once again. What's "legal" or "illegal" has little to do with "The Contract" and everything with who gets to define the rules.

nickpp 7y ago

> "Legally" is a vague term. "Legal" is not a vague term. What is legal at the time the money was made is pretty clearly established (in the court of law, if necessary). > That enforcement can happen in two ways. The enforcement, under the Rule of Law, happens in only one way: through the state. If you don't believe in the Rule of Law, then all this discussion is pointless. > You're appealing to a principle of fairness. No, I am appealing to the principle of The Contract. Going back and changing the terms of a contract is illegal. Under the rule of law, of course.

CaptArmchair 7y ago
So... Do you feel that the establishment of the Roman Empire was "illegal" as it imposed taxes and Roman rule on previously independent territories? As far as the Romans were concerned, their actions were entirely lawful. Or how about the American Revolution which was literally a conflict about taxes? As far as the British Crown was concerned, sending an expeditionary force was all about enforcing the rule of law among rebellious subjects. And if the British had won, we would now consider a short-lived Congress just a bunch of irresponsible rebels. How about the Civil War? Slave owners have balked for a long time over Abolition violating their rights; yet, today nobody in their right mind would consider slavery as something that should to be legalized once again. What's "legal" or "illegal" has little to do with "The Contract" and everything with who gets to define the rules.