5 ms·

> as inheritance is a transfer initiated by the owner of the property Incorrect, dead people cannot own things. Inheritance is a government program that redist

> as inheritance is a transfer initiated by the owner of the property Incorrect, dead people cannot own things. Inheritance is a government program that redistributes property to rich children based on what their parents wrote on a piece of paper. > expropriated from its owners and redistributed to your favored recipients You are very confused. People do not own what they are taxed. When a person is taxed and the money given to eg a social security recipient, that's not violating ownership, that's enforcing ownership. That money is literally the property of the SS recipient. The law is very clear on this. > You’re advocating that some men with guns confiscate the income of the working class and give it to people whom you have deemed more deserving. No, that's what you're advocating, by supporting enforcement of status quo capital income laws. > Property is temporally and logically antecedent to property law. It isn't. You can say the statue of liberty is your property - but until that's enforced by somebody (via initiation of force or threats thereof), it is meaningless. Property is the biggest government program there is. > According to egalitarian principles, you have no such right. Yes I do - I'm simply enforcing my view of property rights.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Incorrect, dead people cannot own things. That is precisely why they initiate the transfer while they are alive by making a will. > People do not own what they are taxed. When a person is taxed and the money given to eg a social security recipient, that's not violating ownership, that's enforcing ownership. That money is literally the property of the SS recipient. The law is very clear on this. Then it sounds like the people aren’t entitled to the income that you want them to. What’s your justification for changing the law on property? > No, that's what you're [...]. > It isn't [...]. This is tiresome. You’re just contradicting me by insisting on your framing of the circumstances without any justification or addressing my arguments. I get it, you (apparently) don’t like it when someone has more than someone else and you want people to run around continuously taking and giving so that no one ever has much more than anyone else. Hopefully one day you can see that this amounts to people enforcing their view of property on everyone else, which is quite the hierarchy and not the least bit egalitarian. I’m sure you’re ready with a devastating rebuttal (“no u”) but the part where people own what they own and obtain through voluntary exchange, and we prohibit taking people’s stuff and rearranging it without their consent, is the one with the egalitarian social ideals imbedded into the fabric of it. Because people have to agree to things, so essentially the poorest person has the same power as the wealthiest. And obviously you can see that in no way can we make the same egalitarian observations about a system that constantly looks at what you own and decides if its “too much” or not. So this is easy to demonstrate in any kind of good faith discussion but when people just contradict you it never gets beyond the part where I say something and you contradict it, so its usually a waste of time. But I appreciate you interacting with me up to this point and please feel free to engage with the substance of my remarks at any time. > You can say the statue of liberty is your property - but until that's enforced by somebody (via initiation of force or threats thereof), it is meaningless. Surely you can see this is not the case. Who would they be enforcing my claim of ownership against, unless someone else also claimed to own the Statue of Liberty? So we haven’t even enforced it yet, but we already have the idea of ownership. You see, there wouldn’t be anything to enforce unless we conceived of an idea of ownership. This is what it means for ownership to precede enforcement. > I'm simply enforcing my view of property rights. Good luck.
- djrobstep 6y ago
  > That is precisely why they initiate the transfer while they are alive by making a will. A will is not a transfer. The law is very clear on this. The government gets the property, then redistributes it to the rich kids via a nanny state program called "inheritance law". > What’s your justification for changing the law on property? To increase fairness and justice. What's your justification for not? > this amounts to people enforcing their view of property on everyone else Every possible political system does this, except the "grab what you can" world where there is no property at all. So why is yours "voluntary" and mine isn't. > people own what they own and obtain through voluntary exchange Property isn't voluntary. It is coercively enforced by the state. > we prohibit taking people’s stuff It's literally not their stuff. Tax law is very clear on this. Me: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to B, because it belongs to B. You're doing a basic circular argument. This is the thing with libertarianism - it's just pure status quo bias. "This person rightfully owns it because they own it". Nothing to do with freedom, because property is coercive, nothing to do with anti state because property is run by the state - just allegiance to existing property owners.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > To increase fairness and justice. It’s not fair for you to decide what other people own. Its injust for you to have that much control over other’s property. > What's your justification for not? According to you I am changing the law, same as you. Fairness and justice. > A will is not a transfer. The law is very clear on this. Thats not really the case, and I’m unconcerned aboit statutes that were written by oligarchs. A will is a valid transfer. > Every possible political system does this You’re not in a position to decide what is and is not possible. > Property isn't voluntary. Yes it is. > It is coercively enforced by the state. So what if you (incorrectly) believe this to be the case? You can’t imagine a possible political system without coercive enforcement so you’re unable to criticize property on this basis. > It's literally not their stuff. In any system of fairness and justice it is. > Me: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to B, because it belongs to B. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. Me: Its not egalitarian for you to dictate what other people rightfully own. That would be a hierarchy with you at the top. > You're doing a basic circular argument. No, I’m applying egalitarian principles to your proposed authoritarian restructuring of society. > This is the thing with libertarianism - it's just pure status quo bias. "This person rightfully owns it because they own it". Who cares about libertarianism? I’m sharing the joys of egalitarianism with you. Quit trying to dictate the world to the rest of us and embrace the pluralism of egalitarianism. > Nothing to do with freedom, because property is coercive, But you like coercion, so to you this isn’t a problem for libertarianism.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Incorrect, dead people cannot own things. That is precisely why they initiate the transfer while they are alive by making a will. > People do not own what they are taxed. When a person is taxed and the money given to eg a social security recipient, that's not violating ownership, that's enforcing ownership. That money is literally the property of the SS recipient. The law is very clear on this. Then it sounds like the people aren’t entitled to the income that you want them to. What’s your justification for changing the law on property? > No, that's what you're [...]. > It isn't [...]. This is tiresome. You’re just contradicting me by insisting on your framing of the circumstances without any justification or addressing my arguments. I get it, you (apparently) don’t like it when someone has more than someone else and you want people to run around continuously taking and giving so that no one ever has much more than anyone else. Hopefully one day you can see that this amounts to people enforcing their view of property on everyone else, which is quite the hierarchy and not the least bit egalitarian. I’m sure you’re ready with a devastating rebuttal (“no u”) but the part where people own what they own and obtain through voluntary exchange, and we prohibit taking people’s stuff and rearranging it without their consent, is the one with the egalitarian social ideals imbedded into the fabric of it. Because people have to agree to things, so essentially the poorest person has the same power as the wealthiest. And obviously you can see that in no way can we make the same egalitarian observations about a system that constantly looks at what you own and decides if its “too much” or not. So this is easy to demonstrate in any kind of good faith discussion but when people just contradict you it never gets beyond the part where I say something and you contradict it, so its usually a waste of time. But I appreciate you interacting with me up to this point and please feel free to engage with the substance of my remarks at any time. > You can say the statue of liberty is your property - but until that's enforced by somebody (via initiation of force or threats thereof), it is meaningless. Surely you can see this is not the case. Who would they be enforcing my claim of ownership against, unless someone else also claimed to own the Statue of Liberty? So we haven’t even enforced it yet, but we already have the idea of ownership. You see, there wouldn’t be anything to enforce unless we conceived of an idea of ownership. This is what it means for ownership to precede enforcement. > I'm simply enforcing my view of property rights. Good luck.

djrobstep 6y ago
> That is precisely why they initiate the transfer while they are alive by making a will. A will is not a transfer. The law is very clear on this. The government gets the property, then redistributes it to the rich kids via a nanny state program called "inheritance law". > What’s your justification for changing the law on property? To increase fairness and justice. What's your justification for not? > this amounts to people enforcing their view of property on everyone else Every possible political system does this, except the "grab what you can" world where there is no property at all. So why is yours "voluntary" and mine isn't. > people own what they own and obtain through voluntary exchange Property isn't voluntary. It is coercively enforced by the state. > we prohibit taking people’s stuff It's literally not their stuff. Tax law is very clear on this. Me: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to B, because it belongs to B. You're doing a basic circular argument. This is the thing with libertarianism - it's just pure status quo bias. "This person rightfully owns it because they own it". Nothing to do with freedom, because property is coercive, nothing to do with anti state because property is run by the state - just allegiance to existing property owners.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > To increase fairness and justice. It’s not fair for you to decide what other people own. Its injust for you to have that much control over other’s property. > What's your justification for not? According to you I am changing the law, same as you. Fairness and justice. > A will is not a transfer. The law is very clear on this. Thats not really the case, and I’m unconcerned aboit statutes that were written by oligarchs. A will is a valid transfer. > Every possible political system does this You’re not in a position to decide what is and is not possible. > Property isn't voluntary. Yes it is. > It is coercively enforced by the state. So what if you (incorrectly) believe this to be the case? You can’t imagine a possible political system without coercive enforcement so you’re unable to criticize property on this basis. > It's literally not their stuff. In any system of fairness and justice it is. > Me: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to B, because it belongs to B. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. Me: Its not egalitarian for you to dictate what other people rightfully own. That would be a hierarchy with you at the top. > You're doing a basic circular argument. No, I’m applying egalitarian principles to your proposed authoritarian restructuring of society. > This is the thing with libertarianism - it's just pure status quo bias. "This person rightfully owns it because they own it". Who cares about libertarianism? I’m sharing the joys of egalitarianism with you. Quit trying to dictate the world to the rest of us and embrace the pluralism of egalitarianism. > Nothing to do with freedom, because property is coercive, But you like coercion, so to you this isn’t a problem for libertarianism.