7 ms·

> The winner of the election is someone all citizens have indirectly sworn oaths of loyalties vis-a-vis the Constitution. Respectfully, this is nonsense. The c

> The winner of the election is someone all citizens have indirectly sworn oaths of loyalties vis-a-vis the Constitution. Respectfully, this is nonsense. The constitution is not an oath, citizens have not sworn to it, and you have yet to substantiate its moral authority. Its just a document that doesn’t support what you’re claiming about it. > Again, this is the same as nearly every other law in existence. When did you consent to laws governing public decency? It is not the same as laws that prohibit crimes against persons, and I already conceded that public decency laws are analogous to taxation. > Who dictates the nature of property rights? Who determines what is logical? The nature of property rights is constituted by the human instinct for territory and assignation of the same innate moral value to all humans is the equilibrium result of repeated negotiations. As for logical thought, it is the emergent result of a species competing for resources in a universe with objective facts. Real-world logical consistency creates circumstances for creatures with brains that comprehend logic to make productive inferences about the world. > That is steering dangerously into the territory of justifying taxation, on the basis of wealth inequality has detrimental affects for society. Not at all. What I described is a process that individuals do with each other. If you feel that you have a claim on the basis of wealth inequality, then you’re free to tender that claim to whoever’s massive wealth is the cause of the alleged wrong against you. That gives you an opportunity to show damages, so you can substantiate your claim against the person whose wealth was so cruel to dare to not belong to you. > If you argue that it is harmful to destroy one's property in such a way that it negatively affects others', then you open the door to claiming that it is harmful to hoard one's earnings. You missed the point. Its not harmful for him to destroy his property. Its harmful for him to destroy others property. His act of burning his own house is fine. Whatever he does that affects other people is up to them to decided if they are fine with it or not. No one is arguing that he can’t (not permitted) burn his own house period. He can’t (is not per itted to) burn other people’s houses (against their wishes) period; even if the technique he uses to burn other people’s houses would be permitted otherwise. > This sounds exactly applicable for someone who thinks taxation is illegitimate. How? You’re already taking food off my plate, thats what taxation is. > That is an argument to reforming a system so it doesn't act as a protection racket, but is instead progressive and correctly redistributes wealth No, its merely an argument against the protection racket. You don’t get to bring in your own terrible system to replace another terrible system. We have agreed the protection racket is bad, now we get rid of that, we’re not putting you in charge of a protection racket so you can run it according to your preferences. > in a way guided by fairness and ability and that is acceptable by all parties. Well if you’re proposing taxes be opt-in, or even voluntary, then that changes everything. If taxes required consent then they would be fine. > So, if you oppose taxation, then you should also oppose property. Absolutely not, what part was unclear? I oppose the state expropriating people by force. How does that imply that I should oppose property?

Apocryphon 6y ago
> Its just a document that doesn’t support what you’re claiming about it. Those who abide from it tacitly support the elected government, of which the people have delegated the powers of taxation to. And the constitution holds the ability to collect taxes, even prior to the 16th amendment. > and I already conceded that public decency laws are analogous to taxation And they are but the iceberg's tip of laws that are analogous to taxation. > The nature of property rights is constituted by the human instinct for territory and assignation of the same innate moral value to all humans is the equilibrium result of repeated negotiations. You can say the same about slavery. > Real-world logical consistency creates circumstances for creatures with brains that comprehend logic to make productive inferences about the world. And yet taxes are ubiquitous. So what does that say about the human ability to comprehend logic? > If you feel that you have a claim on the basis of wealth inequality, then you’re free to tender that claim to whoever’s massive wealth is the cause of the alleged wrong against you. Right, as in the case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. > He can’t (is not per itted to) burn other people’s houses (against their wishes) period; even if the technique he uses to burn other people’s houses would be permitted otherwise. Correct, and if it is shown that inequality caused by lack of taxation leads to the burning of other peoples' homes, then it would demonstrate that hoarding is functionally equivalent of burning your own home in a dense neighborhood. > How? You’re already taking food off my plate, thats what taxation is. That food on your plate was taken from someone else. > You don’t get to bring in your own terrible system to replace another terrible system. On what basis is that choice invalidated? > If taxes required consent then they would be fine. Taxes are consented, because unless one protests the tax overtly, evades the tax covertly, rejects one's citizenship, etc. then one is tacitly consenting to the state quo. That is as naturally, inevitably, and carelessly done as those who would reject property rights thoughtlessly and jealously guard the food on their own plates. To argue that society, which is a complex, interlocking, inelegant, flawed, ridiculous, teetering system is some sort of pure construct of logic where you can argue away one important component, while ignoring your own ineluctable benefiting from that component, is hypocrisy and folly. Perhaps one can imagine a society where every single government service corresponds 1:1 to a tax. Maybe that is the society we should be working to build. Complete transparency and voluntarism. I see nothing wrong with that. But we don't live in that society yet. In the meantime, every time you are not getting your home invaded by a foreign power or by criminal gangs, every time your property is kept safe from fire, every time you type a letter over an information system created by public funding and powered by public utilities, you are consenting to your tax dollars guaranteeing your own life and livelihood. If you call taxes theft, then maybe you should complain about getting all of those public services you never consented to receiving in the first place. If you do, then you have the right to exit. And so we come full circle. > I oppose the state expropriating people by force. How does that imply that I should oppose property? The state preserves property in the same nature that it expropriate taxes, through the monopoly of force. I think that's what Proudhon is getting at. The application of force through abstracted definitions of concepts of taxation or property are less offensive to me than say, government blatantly committing violence through war or covert action or police brutality, but it does seem that you and Proudhon share similar obsessions and thus methodologies of perceiving the world, and thus a compatible framework for discussion.

Apocryphon 6y ago

> Its just a document that doesn’t support what you’re claiming about it. Those who abide from it tacitly support the elected government, of which the people have delegated the powers of taxation to. And the constitution holds the ability to collect taxes, even prior to the 16th amendment. > and I already conceded that public decency laws are analogous to taxation And they are but the iceberg's tip of laws that are analogous to taxation. > The nature of property rights is constituted by the human instinct for territory and assignation of the same innate moral value to all humans is the equilibrium result of repeated negotiations. You can say the same about slavery. > Real-world logical consistency creates circumstances for creatures with brains that comprehend logic to make productive inferences about the world. And yet taxes are ubiquitous. So what does that say about the human ability to comprehend logic? > If you feel that you have a claim on the basis of wealth inequality, then you’re free to tender that claim to whoever’s massive wealth is the cause of the alleged wrong against you. Right, as in the case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. > He can’t (is not per itted to) burn other people’s houses (against their wishes) period; even if the technique he uses to burn other people’s houses would be permitted otherwise. Correct, and if it is shown that inequality caused by lack of taxation leads to the burning of other peoples' homes, then it would demonstrate that hoarding is functionally equivalent of burning your own home in a dense neighborhood. > How? You’re already taking food off my plate, thats what taxation is. That food on your plate was taken from someone else. > You don’t get to bring in your own terrible system to replace another terrible system. On what basis is that choice invalidated? > If taxes required consent then they would be fine. Taxes are consented, because unless one protests the tax overtly, evades the tax covertly, rejects one's citizenship, etc. then one is tacitly consenting to the state quo. That is as naturally, inevitably, and carelessly done as those who would reject property rights thoughtlessly and jealously guard the food on their own plates. To argue that society, which is a complex, interlocking, inelegant, flawed, ridiculous, teetering system is some sort of pure construct of logic where you can argue away one important component, while ignoring your own ineluctable benefiting from that component, is hypocrisy and folly. Perhaps one can imagine a society where every single government service corresponds 1:1 to a tax. Maybe that is the society we should be working to build. Complete transparency and voluntarism. I see nothing wrong with that. But we don't live in that society yet. In the meantime, every time you are not getting your home invaded by a foreign power or by criminal gangs, every time your property is kept safe from fire, every time you type a letter over an information system created by public funding and powered by public utilities, you are consenting to your tax dollars guaranteeing your own life and livelihood. If you call taxes theft, then maybe you should complain about getting all of those public services you never consented to receiving in the first place. If you do, then you have the right to exit. And so we come full circle. > I oppose the state expropriating people by force. How does that imply that I should oppose property? The state preserves property in the same nature that it expropriate taxes, through the monopoly of force. I think that's what Proudhon is getting at. The application of force through abstracted definitions of concepts of taxation or property are less offensive to me than say, government blatantly committing violence through war or covert action or police brutality, but it does seem that you and Proudhon share similar obsessions and thus methodologies of perceiving the world, and thus a compatible framework for discussion.