6 ms·

> The human instinct for territory leads to slavery. Negative. Territory is things, not people. > By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all conta

> The human instinct for territory leads to slavery. Negative. Territory is things, not people. > By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain punitive measures. This is not true. You’ve neglected to consider laws that prohibit without specifying consequences for violation. You’re also neglecting to consider laws against coercion. > 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. Now you’re understanding why a “social contract” can’t be used to justify violating someone’s rights. > Who says I'm not? You’re arguing against it with me right here. > It's as nonsensical as you demanding to receive national defense or the ability to drive on public roads while rejecting taxation I haven’t demanded national defense, and roads predate the government that expropriated them from the commons. I shouldn’t need permission from bureaucrats to use the roads. > And you can do all of that without holding the uselessly extremist position of all taxation is theft! You’re losing the plot. Bureaucrats taxing and spending necessarily means that I’m competing, with bureaucrats, for goods, while the bureaucrats are using my own money to compete with me. > No, the problem with the right of exit is that every single society on earth recognizes the necessity of sustaining through taxation. So you agree that I do not have the right of exit. > But any society you build will inevitably require taxation at a certain scale. [citation needed] > Property is still dependent upon state protection No, it is not. > Taxation is likewise sustained through mutual participation. No, taxation is sustained through asymmetric threat of violence. > Contrariwise, property can also be extorted unilaterally, as in the case of rents. Rent is not a unilateral transaction, neither is it extortion. > Tell it to the vulnerable who are dependent upon social services funded by taxation. Those people well know that they are dependent on the scraps that the oligarchs throw once said oligarchs have ate their fill from the working class. > That power was freely given by individuals to the government How can some individuals give power over the rest of us to the government? > Without an adjudicative force, the only resort is might makes right. You think the government is an alternative to might makes right? Interesting. > Property must originate from somewhere, which would be nature or the public commons. Unowned property becomes owned through homesteading, owned property changes hands through voluntary transfer. > To acquire and then retain property thus requires the use of force. This does not follow from anything you have said, and indeed force is not required to acquire or retain property in all circumstances. Force is a primary means of retaining property when someone attempts to take it from the owner. > 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. I’ve made a solid case that does not rely on Proudhon (whatever his merits).

Apocryphon 6y ago
> Negative. Territory is things, not people. It is also a human instinct to treat people as things. Thus, we appear to be creating a society that can override baser instincts. Anti-propertarians would thus be claiming to transcend those instincts in the name of greater justice, in the same nature as you are claiming to transcend this instincts to abolish taxation. > You’ve neglected to consider laws that prohibit without specifying consequences for violation. Those laws are clearly in the minority. > Now you’re understanding why a “social contract” can’t be used to justify violating someone’s rights. Correct, and it means that your problem is with the whole of the social contract, and taxation is but a fraction of what it entails. > You’re arguing against it with me right here. I argue because I choose to, not because it actually reveals anything about my actual opinions or convictions. > roads predate the government that expropriated them from the commons. Much like private property. > I shouldn’t need permission from bureaucrats to use the roads. Then you are stealing from the actual parties who built those roads and maintain them. > You’re losing the plot. Tu quoque. > Bureaucrats taxing and spending necessarily means that I’m competing, with bureaucrats, for goods, while the bureaucrats are using my own money to compete with me. Yes, yes, the issue of private competition with public services does exist. All of which can be explored without denying the fundamental principle of taxation, as aforementioned ad nauseam. > So you agree that I do not have the right of exit. Yes, but you believe in it for the wrong reasons. > [citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_taxless_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_taxless_countries > No, it is not. Sure it is. Do you claim to be able to protect it if a foreign power assaults it? Can you take on an entire criminal cartel? > Rent is not a unilateral transaction, neither is it extortion. Rent is unilaterally determined by the rentier, who establishes a coercive rent regime due to monopoly ownership over the property in question. Thus, it is extortion because the other party is inherently at a disadvantage. > You think the government is an alternative to might makes right? Interesting. Even most minarchists who want only a night-watchman state will agree upon the necessity of court systems and law enforcement to enforce contracts. You are free to advance an alternative, if you'd like. > Unowned property becomes owned through homesteading, owned property changes hands through voluntary transfer. Homesteading is established through force, and voluntary transfer exist along relations that are backed by the violent force that is society. > Force is a primary means of retaining property when someone attempts to take it from the owner. Because in a Hobbesian state of nature all property is up for grabs, property is inherently in need of protection, and thus force is always on the table. > I’ve made a solid case that does not rely on Proudhon It certainly doesn't, but your case lives in the same moral universe as Proudhon's does, and has about as much relation to reality as his.

Apocryphon 6y ago

> Negative. Territory is things, not people. It is also a human instinct to treat people as things. Thus, we appear to be creating a society that can override baser instincts. Anti-propertarians would thus be claiming to transcend those instincts in the name of greater justice, in the same nature as you are claiming to transcend this instincts to abolish taxation. > You’ve neglected to consider laws that prohibit without specifying consequences for violation. Those laws are clearly in the minority. > Now you’re understanding why a “social contract” can’t be used to justify violating someone’s rights. Correct, and it means that your problem is with the whole of the social contract, and taxation is but a fraction of what it entails. > You’re arguing against it with me right here. I argue because I choose to, not because it actually reveals anything about my actual opinions or convictions. > roads predate the government that expropriated them from the commons. Much like private property. > I shouldn’t need permission from bureaucrats to use the roads. Then you are stealing from the actual parties who built those roads and maintain them. > You’re losing the plot. Tu quoque. > Bureaucrats taxing and spending necessarily means that I’m competing, with bureaucrats, for goods, while the bureaucrats are using my own money to compete with me. Yes, yes, the issue of private competition with public services does exist. All of which can be explored without denying the fundamental principle of taxation, as aforementioned ad nauseam. > So you agree that I do not have the right of exit. Yes, but you believe in it for the wrong reasons. > [citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_taxless_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_taxless_countries > No, it is not. Sure it is. Do you claim to be able to protect it if a foreign power assaults it? Can you take on an entire criminal cartel? > Rent is not a unilateral transaction, neither is it extortion. Rent is unilaterally determined by the rentier, who establishes a coercive rent regime due to monopoly ownership over the property in question. Thus, it is extortion because the other party is inherently at a disadvantage. > You think the government is an alternative to might makes right? Interesting. Even most minarchists who want only a night-watchman state will agree upon the necessity of court systems and law enforcement to enforce contracts. You are free to advance an alternative, if you'd like. > Unowned property becomes owned through homesteading, owned property changes hands through voluntary transfer. Homesteading is established through force, and voluntary transfer exist along relations that are backed by the violent force that is society. > Force is a primary means of retaining property when someone attempts to take it from the owner. Because in a Hobbesian state of nature all property is up for grabs, property is inherently in need of protection, and thus force is always on the table. > I’ve made a solid case that does not rely on Proudhon It certainly doesn't, but your case lives in the same moral universe as Proudhon's does, and has about as much relation to reality as his.