4 ms·

> 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 ext

> 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.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Those are not analogous situations. One is a natural development of the progression of extending rights, And so is the other. > another is an impossible situation of an entirely voluntary legal system without any downsides for bad actors. This is a convenient excuse to justify the expropriation of rents and property by bad actors who seek to use the color of government to impose their own values on the rest of us. > Pretty sure hunter-gathers can levy and pay taxes. You’re mistaken. Foraging populations lack the material surplus to pay taxes and the resources to fund a coercive apparatus tasked with extracting them. > That is again likely the fundamental source of our disagreement: the definition of coercion, and whether if coercion of some sort is inevitable. Agreed. I hope you understand that the burden of proof is on you to show that it is inevitable or desireable. > 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. Yes, and? You’re arguing that they had no choice but to suppress the whiskey tax protestors? There was literally no other option? > Because the "rest of us" pay taxes I did not realize that human rights were contingent on payment of the Danegeld. Does this mean that slavery is justified in the case of a slave who hasn’t paid his taxes? > and follow laws without coercion. [citation needed] > You might as well call robbers and thieves a persecuted minority for rejecting the inherent violence that is property rights. How is property rights inherent violence? > And thus your definition of homesteading has never ever existed in the history of man, or indeed any organism. This is an incredibly ignorant statement and I’m uninterested in attempting to educate someone who appears to have such a closed mind. You’re wrong and if you care that you’re wrong, you’ll reconsider. > What I support or not is immaterial to the conversation at hand. I’ve been assuming good faith, was that incorrect? Is this some attempt to troll me? > Technically, the Plains Indians outnumbered the settlers and did not constitute a minority population. The plains indians are a revisionist attempt at characterizing distinct, unfriendly, and warring populations as a homogenous body. > Rather, they were wiped out by disease, inferior weaponry and tactics, decimation of bison herds, and attacks by rival tribes. The point is they either had property rights in the land, which were violated; or they did not, and there’s no basis upon which to look askance at their expropriation. > 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. On what basis do you criticize expropriation of native populations? Its just as necessary as taxation and prohibitions against nudity and jaywalking. That is to say, “not the least bit necessary.” > 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. Thats true, except we’ve already established that coercion is unnecessary. The task is to get other people to realize that and willingly abandon their coercive measures. Or, if they disagree, and feel that coercion is necessary, for them to perform the basic step of attempting to justify their committment to coercion and violence. > Really, all of this debate could just be centered on jaywalking bans or public decency laws as it has to do with taxation. Not really, as taxation is coercive appropriation of economic value. We could easily express public decency and jaywalking as components of the terms of service that one agrees to in order to access another person’s property. Taxation is a claim on the product of another person’s labor or body. Its more akin to slavery and rape than jaywalking. > All of which abide by common agreement backed by coercion. Why would they need to coerce people, if they agreed to it? You must mean that some people have agreed to cooperate to coerce others. If this is fine, then I see no basis on which to criticize expropriation of the Lakota. > Those who choose to flout the court system are penalized. Those foolish Lakota, choosing the flout the colonists, tsk tsk. When will people learn that it is necessary that someone else threaten you with violence and take your things?

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.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Those are not analogous situations. One is a natural development of the progression of extending rights, And so is the other. > another is an impossible situation of an entirely voluntary legal system without any downsides for bad actors. This is a convenient excuse to justify the expropriation of rents and property by bad actors who seek to use the color of government to impose their own values on the rest of us. > Pretty sure hunter-gathers can levy and pay taxes. You’re mistaken. Foraging populations lack the material surplus to pay taxes and the resources to fund a coercive apparatus tasked with extracting them. > That is again likely the fundamental source of our disagreement: the definition of coercion, and whether if coercion of some sort is inevitable. Agreed. I hope you understand that the burden of proof is on you to show that it is inevitable or desireable. > 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. Yes, and? You’re arguing that they had no choice but to suppress the whiskey tax protestors? There was literally no other option? > Because the "rest of us" pay taxes I did not realize that human rights were contingent on payment of the Danegeld. Does this mean that slavery is justified in the case of a slave who hasn’t paid his taxes? > and follow laws without coercion. [citation needed] > You might as well call robbers and thieves a persecuted minority for rejecting the inherent violence that is property rights. How is property rights inherent violence? > And thus your definition of homesteading has never ever existed in the history of man, or indeed any organism. This is an incredibly ignorant statement and I’m uninterested in attempting to educate someone who appears to have such a closed mind. You’re wrong and if you care that you’re wrong, you’ll reconsider. > What I support or not is immaterial to the conversation at hand. I’ve been assuming good faith, was that incorrect? Is this some attempt to troll me? > Technically, the Plains Indians outnumbered the settlers and did not constitute a minority population. The plains indians are a revisionist attempt at characterizing distinct, unfriendly, and warring populations as a homogenous body. > Rather, they were wiped out by disease, inferior weaponry and tactics, decimation of bison herds, and attacks by rival tribes. The point is they either had property rights in the land, which were violated; or they did not, and there’s no basis upon which to look askance at their expropriation. > 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. On what basis do you criticize expropriation of native populations? Its just as necessary as taxation and prohibitions against nudity and jaywalking. That is to say, “not the least bit necessary.” > 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. Thats true, except we’ve already established that coercion is unnecessary. The task is to get other people to realize that and willingly abandon their coercive measures. Or, if they disagree, and feel that coercion is necessary, for them to perform the basic step of attempting to justify their committment to coercion and violence. > Really, all of this debate could just be centered on jaywalking bans or public decency laws as it has to do with taxation. Not really, as taxation is coercive appropriation of economic value. We could easily express public decency and jaywalking as components of the terms of service that one agrees to in order to access another person’s property. Taxation is a claim on the product of another person’s labor or body. Its more akin to slavery and rape than jaywalking. > All of which abide by common agreement backed by coercion. Why would they need to coerce people, if they agreed to it? You must mean that some people have agreed to cooperate to coerce others. If this is fine, then I see no basis on which to criticize expropriation of the Lakota. > Those who choose to flout the court system are penalized. Those foolish Lakota, choosing the flout the colonists, tsk tsk. When will people learn that it is necessary that someone else threaten you with violence and take your things?