5 ms·

> You can say the same about slavery. That would be nonsensical. We prohibit slavery on the exact same basis as we recognize the immorality of taxation. > And

> You can say the same about slavery. That would be nonsensical. We prohibit slavery on the exact same basis as we recognize the immorality of taxation. > And yet taxes are ubiquitous. So what does that say about the human ability to comprehend logic? We know that the arguments are not logical, which is why taxation is coercive. > That food on your plate was taken from someone else. I obtained it through voluntary exchange. If the title is encumbered then that’s a reason for someone to tender a claim. Regardless I’m not convinced, I don’t survive on the basis of taxation. So I diagree and assert that my food was not taken from some one else. > On what basis is that choice invalidated? The same basis we rejected the last system. > 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. Not at all. I’m subject to violence for those things. Taxation is coercive. Consent cannot be obtained through coercion. > 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. I never said that, I just observed the logical flaws in a particular concept of society. > 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. If you think its a worthy ideal, then you can choose to pursue it. > 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. Thats nonsensical. One might as well call you a pickpocket if I were to steal a wallet and use to buy you ice cream. > 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. We do. We would like the busibodies to stop doing things they want, that we do not want, and then telling us it is for our own good. We are tired of having to bid for services on a market where we must compete with bureaucrats who spend our own money to compete with us. Much has been written about the crowding out effect of government spending in markets. > If you do, then you have the right to exit. And so we come full circle. The problem with exercising that right is that the people who coerce taxes do not recognize the right of exit, and so they use threats and violence to prevent it. > The state preserves property in the same nature that it expropriate taxes, through the monopoly of force. Property is antecedent to state protection. We’re find with waiving state protection if it means no longer having taxes expropriated from us. > I think that's what Proudhon is getting at. Proudhon is wrong. Property is a social arrangement that is sustained through mutual participation. Taxes are extorted unilaterally. > 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, It is less offensive, thats why its a more effective means of appropriating value from people who are vulnerable. > it does seem that you and Proudhon share similar obsessions and thus methodologies of perceiving the world, and thus a compatible framework for discussion. Proudhon is mistaken about the nature of property. It’s a social arrangement that exists between persons. The government claimed the power to ajudicate disputes, and since then greedy people abuse that power to violate property rights. This power that is abused is the same power thatis used to collect taxes and violate people’s rights. Property rights are logically antecedent to this.

Apocryphon 6y ago
> We prohibit slavery on the exact same basis as we recognize the immorality of taxation. The human instinct for territory leads to slavery. > We know that the arguments are not logical Who is we? > The same basis we rejected the last system. No one has rejected taxation as a concept other than yourself. > Consent cannot be obtained through coercion. By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain punitive measures. In fact, it can be extrapolated that all of society is coercive, as the societal contract is assumed pre-birth and never formally consented to, and is subject to violence at every level. > I never said that, I just observed the logical flaws in a particular concept of society. You did, because you are treating taxation as a critique of pure reason, rather than a concrete policy that exists outside of a vacuum. > If you think its a worthy ideal, then you can choose to pursue it. Who says I'm not? > Thats nonsensical. One might as well call you a pickpocket if I were to steal a wallet and use to buy you ice cream. It's as nonsensical as you demanding to receive national defense or the ability to drive on public roads while rejecting taxation. > We are tired of having to bid for services on a market where we must compete with bureaucrats who spend our own money to compete with us. And you can do all of that without holding the uselessly extremist position of all taxation is theft! > Much has been written about the crowding out effect of government spending in markets. Without having to resort to rejecting taxation as a concept from first principles. > the people who coerce taxes do not recognize the right of exit No, the problem with the right of exit is that every single society on earth recognizes the necessity of sustaining through taxation. Perhaps you can try exiting to terra nullis or seasteading in international waters. But any society you build will inevitably require taxation at a certain scale. At the very least then you will have accomplished a political experiment to validate your beliefs on the non-necessity of taxes. > Property is antecedent to state protection. Property is still dependent upon state protection, as again the institutions of national defense and public courts demonstrate. > Property is a social arrangement that is sustained through mutual participation. Taxes are extorted unilaterally. Taxation is likewise sustained through mutual participation. Contrariwise, property can also be extorted unilaterally, as in the case of rents. > thats why its a more effective means of appropriating value from people who are vulnerable Tell it to the vulnerable who are dependent upon social services funded by taxation. > The government claimed the power to ajudicate disputes That power was freely given by individuals to the government, as there is a need for a neutral third party and a higher authority to appeal to. Without an adjudicative force, the only resort is might makes right. > Property rights are logically antecedent to this. Property must originate from somewhere, which would be nature or the public commons. To acquire and then retain property thus requires the use of force. At least according to Proudhon's definition. If you are to accuse all sorts of common concepts of originating in force and violence, then you are living in Proudhon's world. You only have a different bugbear from him.

Apocryphon 6y ago

> We prohibit slavery on the exact same basis as we recognize the immorality of taxation. The human instinct for territory leads to slavery. > We know that the arguments are not logical Who is we? > The same basis we rejected the last system. No one has rejected taxation as a concept other than yourself. > Consent cannot be obtained through coercion. By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain punitive measures. In fact, it can be extrapolated that all of society is coercive, as the societal contract is assumed pre-birth and never formally consented to, and is subject to violence at every level. > I never said that, I just observed the logical flaws in a particular concept of society. You did, because you are treating taxation as a critique of pure reason, rather than a concrete policy that exists outside of a vacuum. > If you think its a worthy ideal, then you can choose to pursue it. Who says I'm not? > Thats nonsensical. One might as well call you a pickpocket if I were to steal a wallet and use to buy you ice cream. It's as nonsensical as you demanding to receive national defense or the ability to drive on public roads while rejecting taxation. > We are tired of having to bid for services on a market where we must compete with bureaucrats who spend our own money to compete with us. And you can do all of that without holding the uselessly extremist position of all taxation is theft! > Much has been written about the crowding out effect of government spending in markets. Without having to resort to rejecting taxation as a concept from first principles. > the people who coerce taxes do not recognize the right of exit No, the problem with the right of exit is that every single society on earth recognizes the necessity of sustaining through taxation. Perhaps you can try exiting to terra nullis or seasteading in international waters. But any society you build will inevitably require taxation at a certain scale. At the very least then you will have accomplished a political experiment to validate your beliefs on the non-necessity of taxes. > Property is antecedent to state protection. Property is still dependent upon state protection, as again the institutions of national defense and public courts demonstrate. > Property is a social arrangement that is sustained through mutual participation. Taxes are extorted unilaterally. Taxation is likewise sustained through mutual participation. Contrariwise, property can also be extorted unilaterally, as in the case of rents. > thats why its a more effective means of appropriating value from people who are vulnerable Tell it to the vulnerable who are dependent upon social services funded by taxation. > The government claimed the power to ajudicate disputes That power was freely given by individuals to the government, as there is a need for a neutral third party and a higher authority to appeal to. Without an adjudicative force, the only resort is might makes right. > Property rights are logically antecedent to this. Property must originate from somewhere, which would be nature or the public commons. To acquire and then retain property thus requires the use of force. At least according to Proudhon's definition. If you are to accuse all sorts of common concepts of originating in force and violence, then you are living in Proudhon's world. You only have a different bugbear from him.