5 ms·

Property/territoriality is not an instinct to treat people as things. Your desire to override my baser instincts is misplaced. Concentrate on overriding your o

Property/territoriality is not an instinct to treat people as things. Your desire to override my baser instincts is misplaced. Concentrate on overriding your own base instincts, then you will be less inclined to expropriate from people and redistribute the wealth of others according to your subjective preferences. I’m glad you’ve conceded that coercion is not a necessary component of laws. It is true that private property also predates the government. I’m glad you’ve conceded your earlier point about the right of exit. You’ve yet to establish the necessity of taxation. Rent is not unilaterally determined by the rentier. Its negotiated between the rentier and the renter. How do you describe a government in a way that the government isn’t an instance of “might makes right”? Homesteading is not established by force. Voluntary exchange cuts across relations that are violently enforced by society. Hobbes was mistaken about a state of nature. Your fixation on Proudhon is detracting from your efforts to reply to my arguments. Finally, property doesn’t require the state because property can exist in the absence of a state. The fact that states can expropriate people is the basis for this entire argument. Essentially you’re saying if I didn’t have a state expropriating me, I’d have a state expropriating me. Well, who is expropriating the state? Why not?

Apocryphon 6y ago
> Concentrate on overriding your own base instincts, then you will be less inclined to expropriate from people and redistribute the wealth of others according to your subjective preferences. Who says those are my actual instincts? For all you know, I completely agree with your positions on taxation and am merely testing how well you advance our mutual beliefs. For all intents and purposes, neither of us exist beyond this conversation. One must transcend the baser instinct of assuming one's opponent's personality in order to debate with pure logic. > I’m glad you’ve conceded that coercion is not a necessary component of laws. For all intents and purposes, they constitute a vast majority of laws. > It is true that private property also predates the government. Source? > I’m glad you’ve conceded your earlier point about the right of exit. How did I concede? > You’ve yet to establish the necessity of taxation. You've yet to advance an alternative mode of government that exists without it. > Rent is not unilaterally determined by the rentier. Its negotiated between the rentier and the renter. In the same way that a monopolistic market still creates contracts despite power and information asymmetry, sure. > How do you describe a government in a way that the government isn’t an instance of “might makes right”? Social contract and free association, which is how governments are founded. > Homesteading is not established by force. Tell it to the Lakota. > Voluntary exchange cuts across relations that are violently enforced by society. Voluntary exchange is still founded on the principles of violent enforcement in the case when exchangers break contracts. > Hobbes was mistaken about a state of nature. And who wasn't? > Your fixation on Proudhon is detracting from your efforts to reply to my arguments. It's because your arguments are by similar to his. > Essentially you’re saying if I didn’t have a state expropriating me, I’d have a state expropriating me. And that's the crux of it. Anytime there is more than a single person, you have a state. It's states all the way down. > Well, who is expropriating the state? Why not? There's always a bigger state. And usually, the state itself.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Who says those are my actual instincts? For all you know, I completely agree with your positions on taxation and am merely testing how well you advance our mutual beliefs. I can only take your position as stated, I’m not willing to sit here an imagine that you’re secretly disagreeing with yourself ;) > For all intents and purposes, they constitute a vast majority of laws. All that is necessary is to establish the lack of necessity. > Source? Anthropology. Read about the origins of property and government. > How did I concede? You agreed that there are laws that don’t include coercion. > You've yet to advance an alternative mode of government that exists without it. I’m sure if you review the discussion you will see that I have. Its the same as the model of marriage without rape. You just remove the rape/taxation. > In the same way that a monopolistic market still creates contracts despite power and information asymmetry, sure. So you understand that rents are negotiated whereas taxes are extorted violently. Excellent. > Social contract and free association, How does free association work when you coerce taxes from people? Can people opt out this association or are they slaves to the government? > which is how governments are founded. Tell that to the Lakota. > Tell it to the Lakota. Expropriation is not homesteading. > Voluntary exchange is still founded on the principles of violent enforcement in the case when exchangers break contracts. No, it is not. You’re assuming contracts require violent enforcement, which is not true. The parties to the contract decide how they themselves will react when a party believes that the contract has been breached. > And that's the crux of it. Anytime there is more than a single person, you have a state. It's states all the way down. Thats nonsense. > There's always a bigger state. And usually, the state itself. There is an infinite chain of states expropriating each smaller one on into infinity? This sounds nonsensical.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    > I’m not willing to sit here an imagine that you’re secretly disagreeing with yourself Then there is no need to make comments to the contrary. > All that is necessary is to establish the lack of necessity. What if those laws are reliant upon other ones that have punitive measures. Even the Bill of Rights is not voluntary, because it relies on violent enforcement as secession is not legal. > Read about the origins of property and government. What are the origins of taxation? > You agreed that there are laws that don’t include coercion. See above re: reliant upon greater laws. > I’m sure if you review the discussion you will see that I have. So you're advancing a form of government that is entirely self-funded. Any examples? > So you understand that rents are negotiated whereas taxes are extorted violently. Excellent. Actually, taxes are also negotiated. > How does free association work when you coerce taxes from people? When people willingly pay taxes, which they do so except for minorities of tax protesters and tax evaders. You might as well ask how does free association work when you coerce people to wear seatbelts or refrain from jaywalking. > Expropriation is not homesteading. Homesteading was largely expropriation. Settlers tend to favor habitable areas. Habitable areas tend to be inhabited. > Tell that to the Lakota. As above. > The parties to the contract decide how they themselves will react when a party believes that the contract has been breached. Then why are there civil courts? > Thats nonsense. A little nonsense now and then Is relished by the wisest men. > This sounds nonsensical. Such is the great chain of being.

Apocryphon 6y ago

> Concentrate on overriding your own base instincts, then you will be less inclined to expropriate from people and redistribute the wealth of others according to your subjective preferences. Who says those are my actual instincts? For all you know, I completely agree with your positions on taxation and am merely testing how well you advance our mutual beliefs. For all intents and purposes, neither of us exist beyond this conversation. One must transcend the baser instinct of assuming one's opponent's personality in order to debate with pure logic. > I’m glad you’ve conceded that coercion is not a necessary component of laws. For all intents and purposes, they constitute a vast majority of laws. > It is true that private property also predates the government. Source? > I’m glad you’ve conceded your earlier point about the right of exit. How did I concede? > You’ve yet to establish the necessity of taxation. You've yet to advance an alternative mode of government that exists without it. > Rent is not unilaterally determined by the rentier. Its negotiated between the rentier and the renter. In the same way that a monopolistic market still creates contracts despite power and information asymmetry, sure. > How do you describe a government in a way that the government isn’t an instance of “might makes right”? Social contract and free association, which is how governments are founded. > Homesteading is not established by force. Tell it to the Lakota. > Voluntary exchange cuts across relations that are violently enforced by society. Voluntary exchange is still founded on the principles of violent enforcement in the case when exchangers break contracts. > Hobbes was mistaken about a state of nature. And who wasn't? > Your fixation on Proudhon is detracting from your efforts to reply to my arguments. It's because your arguments are by similar to his. > Essentially you’re saying if I didn’t have a state expropriating me, I’d have a state expropriating me. And that's the crux of it. Anytime there is more than a single person, you have a state. It's states all the way down. > Well, who is expropriating the state? Why not? There's always a bigger state. And usually, the state itself.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Who says those are my actual instincts? For all you know, I completely agree with your positions on taxation and am merely testing how well you advance our mutual beliefs. I can only take your position as stated, I’m not willing to sit here an imagine that you’re secretly disagreeing with yourself ;) > For all intents and purposes, they constitute a vast majority of laws. All that is necessary is to establish the lack of necessity. > Source? Anthropology. Read about the origins of property and government. > How did I concede? You agreed that there are laws that don’t include coercion. > You've yet to advance an alternative mode of government that exists without it. I’m sure if you review the discussion you will see that I have. Its the same as the model of marriage without rape. You just remove the rape/taxation. > In the same way that a monopolistic market still creates contracts despite power and information asymmetry, sure. So you understand that rents are negotiated whereas taxes are extorted violently. Excellent. > Social contract and free association, How does free association work when you coerce taxes from people? Can people opt out this association or are they slaves to the government? > which is how governments are founded. Tell that to the Lakota. > Tell it to the Lakota. Expropriation is not homesteading. > Voluntary exchange is still founded on the principles of violent enforcement in the case when exchangers break contracts. No, it is not. You’re assuming contracts require violent enforcement, which is not true. The parties to the contract decide how they themselves will react when a party believes that the contract has been breached. > And that's the crux of it. Anytime there is more than a single person, you have a state. It's states all the way down. Thats nonsense. > There's always a bigger state. And usually, the state itself. There is an infinite chain of states expropriating each smaller one on into infinity? This sounds nonsensical.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  > I’m not willing to sit here an imagine that you’re secretly disagreeing with yourself Then there is no need to make comments to the contrary. > All that is necessary is to establish the lack of necessity. What if those laws are reliant upon other ones that have punitive measures. Even the Bill of Rights is not voluntary, because it relies on violent enforcement as secession is not legal. > Read about the origins of property and government. What are the origins of taxation? > You agreed that there are laws that don’t include coercion. See above re: reliant upon greater laws. > I’m sure if you review the discussion you will see that I have. So you're advancing a form of government that is entirely self-funded. Any examples? > So you understand that rents are negotiated whereas taxes are extorted violently. Excellent. Actually, taxes are also negotiated. > How does free association work when you coerce taxes from people? When people willingly pay taxes, which they do so except for minorities of tax protesters and tax evaders. You might as well ask how does free association work when you coerce people to wear seatbelts or refrain from jaywalking. > Expropriation is not homesteading. Homesteading was largely expropriation. Settlers tend to favor habitable areas. Habitable areas tend to be inhabited. > Tell that to the Lakota. As above. > The parties to the contract decide how they themselves will react when a party believes that the contract has been breached. Then why are there civil courts? > Thats nonsense. A little nonsense now and then Is relished by the wisest men. > This sounds nonsensical. Such is the great chain of being.