4 ms·

As someone who has worked extremely hard to acquire assets great than 15 million, who do you suggest has the authority to come and take some of it away from me.

As someone who has worked extremely hard to acquire assets great than 15 million, who do you suggest has the authority to come and take some of it away from me. And what will they do with the resources they confiscate?

medo-bear 3y ago
The same people that already have the power to confiscate your assets - the tax office.
yellowapple 3y ago
By what authority are those assets "yours" in the first place? Whence did those assets originate?
- nobleach 3y ago
  When one makes an agreement that if I set certain goals, and I achieve said goals, I will be compensated a certain amount. If I choose to buy land, goods, services, the seller chooses the "value". If I agree on the value, I have free will to to purchase the land, goods or service. If I do not agree on the value, I can either offer a lower price, or walk away. If I purchase said land, goods or service, and later decide that I no longer want those things, I can choose to sell them. At that point, I set a value. If the purchaser agrees on the value, I then sell/transfer ownership to that person. If the value has grown since I purchased said land, goods, service, I could potentially profit. If the value has not increased, I am at a loss. So, to directly answer your question about "authority". (In my case, land that was owned, and worked, for 100 years in an area that no one wanted to live). A price for said land was agreed upon. The sale was advantageous for the seller as he no longer wanted to tend it. I assumed the risk, taxes, etc. Working said land was extremely arduous. Shepherding it through multiple hurricanes, floods, etc bore a financial burden. Many years later, as the area began to develop, my asset grew in value. Selling it produced a profit. This profit allowed me more ability to purchase other land, goods and services. As I'm tying this, I'm certain you're aware of these basic economic principles, but simply don't agree with them. Disagreement is fine. But this is the way things are done in my country. And, I choose to live here because I agree with those principles. If I wanted to live in a country where an entity could come and confiscate my wealth, and redistribute it, those countries exist. I could likely move to one of them.
- germandiago 3y ago
  I suspect it is not someone that came and gave it for free. So I would say they should belong to the keeper right now. And if it was a gift, it would still be a property transfer. So still his.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    > I suspect it is not someone that came and gave it for free. I suspect that whatever price was charged was a bargain compared to what it's actually worth - and thus the transfer was at the expense of the rest of society. > And if it was a gift, it would still be a property transfer. So still his. And if that "gift" was stolen from someone else beforehand?
    - nobleach 3y ago
      Perhaps you should clarify what "stolen" means. Am I to assume that every piece of land has an "original owner"? Who is that?
      - yellowapple 3y ago
        > Perhaps you should clarify what "stolen" means. There are two senses of theft at issue: 1. Some government establishes (or expands) its sovereign territory through violent conquest. 2. Private parties obtain a service from said government and the society it ostensibly represents without paying in full for it (specifically: the issuance, recognition, and enforcement of land titles/boundaries, those being definitionally subsets of said government's sovereign territory - which, again, may or may not have been obtained through violent conquest) Here in the US, both of those sorts of theft are in play: 1. The entirety of US territory was obtained either by conquering it from other entities (e.g. Native American tribes, Mexico, Spain) or by purchasing it from other powers who had previously done so (e.g. France, Spain, Britain, Russia). 2. The US government (or state/local subdivisions thereof) issues and enforces deeds representing subsets of its sovereign territory to landowners, at the exclusion of the rest of its citizenry - yet the landowners do not pay anywhere near the full rental value of the land to said government or said citizenry. > Am I to assume that every piece of land has an "original owner"? Who is that? In the case of American land, that'd be the indigenous peoples thereof. In a more general/legal sense, the "original owner" would be the government of whose sovereign territory that land is a subset. If that government ostensibly represents its citizens, then said "original ownership" would rest with each and every individual citizen equally. As Locke explained in his Second Treatise of Government: > Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same. That is: every member of society is entitled to an equal share (by value) of the land on which that society exists. Those who own more than their equal share of that land value owe compensation to those who own less than their equal share. The lack of said compensation is theft.

medo-bear 3y ago

The same people that already have the power to confiscate your assets - the tax office.

yellowapple 3y ago

By what authority are those assets "yours" in the first place? Whence did those assets originate?

nobleach 3y ago
When one makes an agreement that if I set certain goals, and I achieve said goals, I will be compensated a certain amount. If I choose to buy land, goods, services, the seller chooses the "value". If I agree on the value, I have free will to to purchase the land, goods or service. If I do not agree on the value, I can either offer a lower price, or walk away. If I purchase said land, goods or service, and later decide that I no longer want those things, I can choose to sell them. At that point, I set a value. If the purchaser agrees on the value, I then sell/transfer ownership to that person. If the value has grown since I purchased said land, goods, service, I could potentially profit. If the value has not increased, I am at a loss. So, to directly answer your question about "authority". (In my case, land that was owned, and worked, for 100 years in an area that no one wanted to live). A price for said land was agreed upon. The sale was advantageous for the seller as he no longer wanted to tend it. I assumed the risk, taxes, etc. Working said land was extremely arduous. Shepherding it through multiple hurricanes, floods, etc bore a financial burden. Many years later, as the area began to develop, my asset grew in value. Selling it produced a profit. This profit allowed me more ability to purchase other land, goods and services. As I'm tying this, I'm certain you're aware of these basic economic principles, but simply don't agree with them. Disagreement is fine. But this is the way things are done in my country. And, I choose to live here because I agree with those principles. If I wanted to live in a country where an entity could come and confiscate my wealth, and redistribute it, those countries exist. I could likely move to one of them.
germandiago 3y ago
I suspect it is not someone that came and gave it for free. So I would say they should belong to the keeper right now. And if it was a gift, it would still be a property transfer. So still his.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  > I suspect it is not someone that came and gave it for free. I suspect that whatever price was charged was a bargain compared to what it's actually worth - and thus the transfer was at the expense of the rest of society. > And if it was a gift, it would still be a property transfer. So still his. And if that "gift" was stolen from someone else beforehand?
  - nobleach 3y ago
    Perhaps you should clarify what "stolen" means. Am I to assume that every piece of land has an "original owner"? Who is that?
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      > Perhaps you should clarify what "stolen" means. There are two senses of theft at issue: 1. Some government establishes (or expands) its sovereign territory through violent conquest. 2. Private parties obtain a service from said government and the society it ostensibly represents without paying in full for it (specifically: the issuance, recognition, and enforcement of land titles/boundaries, those being definitionally subsets of said government's sovereign territory - which, again, may or may not have been obtained through violent conquest) Here in the US, both of those sorts of theft are in play: 1. The entirety of US territory was obtained either by conquering it from other entities (e.g. Native American tribes, Mexico, Spain) or by purchasing it from other powers who had previously done so (e.g. France, Spain, Britain, Russia). 2. The US government (or state/local subdivisions thereof) issues and enforces deeds representing subsets of its sovereign territory to landowners, at the exclusion of the rest of its citizenry - yet the landowners do not pay anywhere near the full rental value of the land to said government or said citizenry. > Am I to assume that every piece of land has an "original owner"? Who is that? In the case of American land, that'd be the indigenous peoples thereof. In a more general/legal sense, the "original owner" would be the government of whose sovereign territory that land is a subset. If that government ostensibly represents its citizens, then said "original ownership" would rest with each and every individual citizen equally. As Locke explained in his Second Treatise of Government: > Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same. That is: every member of society is entitled to an equal share (by value) of the land on which that society exists. Those who own more than their equal share of that land value owe compensation to those who own less than their equal share. The lack of said compensation is theft.