7 ms·

> 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 mu

> 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.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > What if those laws are reliant upon other ones that have punitive measures. Then society will simply have to accommodate just as they accommodated to the extension of human rights to women and slaves. > What are the origins of taxation? Agriculture. > Actually, taxes are also negotiated. Yes, under coercion. This is categorically different than negotiation absent coercion. > When people willingly pay taxes, which they do so except for minorities of tax protesters and tax evaders. I’m disappointed at how readily you dismiss the rights of other people on the basis of your opinion that they are minorities. Who cares if they are minorities? Why don’t they have the same rights as the rest of us? > You might as well ask how does free association work when you coerce people to wear seatbelts or refrain from jaywalking. Thats easy, free association doesn’t justify jaywalking prohibitions or seatbelt mandates. > Homesteading was largely expropriation We’re using different definitions of the word “homesteading” but what happened to the Lakota was expropriation, not homesteading and not justified under my system. I’m at a loss as to how you can be critical of the expropriation of the Lakota, its exactly the same as taxation. The minority had to sacrifice for the greater good. I’m opposed to this sort of thing, but I can’t tell if you support it or not. > Settlers tend to favor habitable areas. Habitable areas tend to be inhabited. Exactly. The minority Lakota were expropriated because they wanted to keep the habitable areas to themselves when a growing population needed them, the land was duly expropriated by the mighty power of government, and no one was upset except for a handful of bleeding hearts who don’t matter anyway. Pay your taxes and shut up. > As above. So you agree that governments are coercive? > Then why are there civil courts? Sometimes they decide to solve their dispute by hearing claims and evidence in the presence of a judge and witnesses.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    > Then society will simply have to accommodate just as they accommodated to the extension of human rights to women and slaves. Those are not analogous situations. One is a natural development of the progression of extending rights, another is an impossible situation of an entirely voluntary legal system without any downsides for bad actors. > Agriculture Pretty sure hunter-gathers can levy and pay taxes. > This is categorically different than negotiation absent coercion. That is again likely the fundamental source of our disagreement: the definition of coercion, and whether if coercion of some sort is inevitable. One useful historical example: the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against taxation without representation, among other reasons, against the British crown. Shortly after, those same Founding Fathers behind the revolution put down the same former veterans of that war with violent force during Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. So there you go. So much for liberal tolerance. Not to praise them for doing that, but it doesn't exactly show that it is possible to govern without coffers. > Why don’t they have the same rights as the rest of us? Because the "rest of us" pay taxes and follow laws without coercion. You might as well call robbers and thieves a persecuted minority for rejecting the inherent violence that is property rights. > Thats easy, free association doesn’t justify jaywalking prohibitions or seatbelt mandates. Correct, because the corpus of laws that are justifiable in your view can fit on the back of a box of cereal. > not homesteading and not justified under my system And thus your definition of homesteading has never ever existed in the history of man, or indeed any organism. > I can’t tell if you support it or not. What I support or not is immaterial to the conversation at hand. > The minority Lakota were expropriated because they wanted to keep the habitable areas to themselves when a growing population needed them Technically, the Plains Indians outnumbered the settlers and did not constitute a minority population. Rather, they were wiped out by disease, inferior weaponry and tactics, decimation of bison herds, and attacks by rival tribes. > no one was upset except for a handful of bleeding hearts who don’t matter anyway. Much like the handful of bleeding hearts who are upset when others rebel against the coercive force of property rights. Or the nudists who are oppressed against modesty laws. > So you agree that governments are coercive? To some degree, yes, by definition and by necessity. Coercion can be minimized and bound by frameworks of human rights. It is up to the critic to come up with a completely alternative system. The debate has also made it clear that the issue really isn't about taxation, or property, at all. The issue is about the nature of law, of whether it is possible to create a society that doesn't involve coercion at some level. Really, all of this debate could just be centered on jaywalking bans or public decency laws as it has to do with taxation. > Sometimes they decide to solve their dispute by hearing claims and evidence in the presence of a judge and witnesses. All of which abide by common agreement backed by coercion. Those who choose to flout the court system are penalized.

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.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> What if those laws are reliant upon other ones that have punitive measures. Then society will simply have to accommodate just as they accommodated to the extension of human rights to women and slaves. > What are the origins of taxation? Agriculture. > Actually, taxes are also negotiated. Yes, under coercion. This is categorically different than negotiation absent coercion. > When people willingly pay taxes, which they do so except for minorities of tax protesters and tax evaders. I’m disappointed at how readily you dismiss the rights of other people on the basis of your opinion that they are minorities. Who cares if they are minorities? Why don’t they have the same rights as the rest of us? > You might as well ask how does free association work when you coerce people to wear seatbelts or refrain from jaywalking. Thats easy, free association doesn’t justify jaywalking prohibitions or seatbelt mandates. > Homesteading was largely expropriation We’re using different definitions of the word “homesteading” but what happened to the Lakota was expropriation, not homesteading and not justified under my system. I’m at a loss as to how you can be critical of the expropriation of the Lakota, its exactly the same as taxation. The minority had to sacrifice for the greater good. I’m opposed to this sort of thing, but I can’t tell if you support it or not. > Settlers tend to favor habitable areas. Habitable areas tend to be inhabited. Exactly. The minority Lakota were expropriated because they wanted to keep the habitable areas to themselves when a growing population needed them, the land was duly expropriated by the mighty power of government, and no one was upset except for a handful of bleeding hearts who don’t matter anyway. Pay your taxes and shut up. > As above. So you agree that governments are coercive? > Then why are there civil courts? Sometimes they decide to solve their dispute by hearing claims and evidence in the presence of a judge and witnesses.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  > Then society will simply have to accommodate just as they accommodated to the extension of human rights to women and slaves. Those are not analogous situations. One is a natural development of the progression of extending rights, another is an impossible situation of an entirely voluntary legal system without any downsides for bad actors. > Agriculture Pretty sure hunter-gathers can levy and pay taxes. > This is categorically different than negotiation absent coercion. That is again likely the fundamental source of our disagreement: the definition of coercion, and whether if coercion of some sort is inevitable. One useful historical example: the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against taxation without representation, among other reasons, against the British crown. Shortly after, those same Founding Fathers behind the revolution put down the same former veterans of that war with violent force during Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. So there you go. So much for liberal tolerance. Not to praise them for doing that, but it doesn't exactly show that it is possible to govern without coffers. > Why don’t they have the same rights as the rest of us? Because the "rest of us" pay taxes and follow laws without coercion. You might as well call robbers and thieves a persecuted minority for rejecting the inherent violence that is property rights. > Thats easy, free association doesn’t justify jaywalking prohibitions or seatbelt mandates. Correct, because the corpus of laws that are justifiable in your view can fit on the back of a box of cereal. > not homesteading and not justified under my system And thus your definition of homesteading has never ever existed in the history of man, or indeed any organism. > I can’t tell if you support it or not. What I support or not is immaterial to the conversation at hand. > The minority Lakota were expropriated because they wanted to keep the habitable areas to themselves when a growing population needed them Technically, the Plains Indians outnumbered the settlers and did not constitute a minority population. Rather, they were wiped out by disease, inferior weaponry and tactics, decimation of bison herds, and attacks by rival tribes. > no one was upset except for a handful of bleeding hearts who don’t matter anyway. Much like the handful of bleeding hearts who are upset when others rebel against the coercive force of property rights. Or the nudists who are oppressed against modesty laws. > So you agree that governments are coercive? To some degree, yes, by definition and by necessity. Coercion can be minimized and bound by frameworks of human rights. It is up to the critic to come up with a completely alternative system. The debate has also made it clear that the issue really isn't about taxation, or property, at all. The issue is about the nature of law, of whether it is possible to create a society that doesn't involve coercion at some level. Really, all of this debate could just be centered on jaywalking bans or public decency laws as it has to do with taxation. > Sometimes they decide to solve their dispute by hearing claims and evidence in the presence of a judge and witnesses. All of which abide by common agreement backed by coercion. Those who choose to flout the court system are penalized.