5 ms·

but presumably the focus here is what people choose to spend their money on, and taxes aren't much of a choice. Taxes are the rent you pay for choosing to live

but presumably the focus here is what people choose to spend their money on, and taxes aren't much of a choice. Taxes are the rent you pay for choosing to live in the USA.

TheAmazingIdiot 17y ago
I didn't "choose" to live in this country. I was born here. And without open borders to make residence in multiple countries, we are not "free" either.
- bokonist 17y ago
  You choose to stay. A person may be born in an apartment, but that doesn't mean they can live there rent free for the rest of their life. And yes, you are not just free to walk into some other country and live there. But nor are you are allowed to walk onto someone else's property and live on it.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    I'm not sure if your reasoning for this is the same as our mutual friend MM's, but I've been meaning to address it, so I might as well do that here. To take your position, I think you first have to admit that USG is the de facto owner of all US territory. You, MM, and I would probably have no problem admitting this, but most people would have trouble with it. But even after we admit this, we still need to ask if this ownership ought to be treated as legitimate, and there I disagree with MM.
    - bokonist 17y ago
      I think that the principle of Adverse Possession applies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession ). If USG is not the legitimate title holder of middle-North America, who is?
      - johnnybgoode 17y ago
        Why should adverse possession apply? One use for it is to establish who the de facto owner is, but that is of course unnecessary here. Another is to provide more security for property owners -- does the most powerful corporation in the history of the world need that from us? Third, since adverse possession is based on the doctrine of laches, if it applies here doesn't England have a stronger claim to ownership? Also, if we are applying common law principles, I contend that USG has in the past engaged in massive fraud by pretending it is not the actual owner, and continues to do so today. When we also consider the violent means it has used to acquire and maintain ownership, we have force and fraud -- enough to disqualify USG as a legitimate title holder. > If USG is not the legitimate title holder of middle-North America, who is? I admit, the answer is unclear, but it does seem clear that USG is not it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your reasoning is at least slightly different from MM's, then -- I don't think MM has much of an interest in this question or much of an answer to it, since he has criticized the "Rebellion" but now accepts USG's ownership.
        bokonist 17y ago
        Adverse Possession does not care how the property was acquired. All it cares is that the owner has managed to maintain uncontested possession of it. The states originally siezed the territory from the Brits. The Feds then seized it from the states. Neither usurpation is still contested to this day. No state government maintains that the New Deal is illegitimate. Adverse Possession is not about making moral claims. It is a way to prevent violence by settling who owns what. Groups would try and manufacture claims and rally groups to regain possession. You see this happen in the Balkans and Middle East with claims going back hundreds or thousands of years. Of course, in some ways the question of legitimacy of state ownership is silly. Law between sovereigns or between a sovereign and its residents is always jungle law. The strongest wins. By definition, there is no third party to enforce the law.
        johnnybgoode 17y ago
        I don't think I disputed anything in your first two paragraphs, but let me know if you think I did. As you say, the strongest wins, so why rely on something like adverse possession? If you're saying it ought to apply here solely for the purpose of preventing violence, then, as I said, it doesn't seem necessary. USG's military and propaganda arms are powerful enough today as to make this irrelevant. Of course, if most of the residents are very dissatisfied with their sovereign and are willing to take extreme measures, they have a chance of winning regardless of immediately available firepower. This is where the question of legitimacy matters, because a sovereign will have at least some trouble if its residents do not accept its legitimacy, even if it wins in the end.
Xichekolas 17y ago
Well yeah, but I mean you can't really choose you level of tax payments as an individual. I can choose to leave and not pay any, but I can't say "better cut back on my taxes this month to make ends meet". I'm not complaining about my taxes. I think there are tons of things we could do to improve how we spent tax revenue, but I wouldn't say we are overtaxed.

but presumably the focus here is what people choose to spend their money on, and taxes aren't much of a choice. Taxes are the rent you pay for choosing to live in the USA.

TheAmazingIdiot 17y ago

I didn't "choose" to live in this country. I was born here. And without open borders to make residence in multiple countries, we are not "free" either.

bokonist 17y ago
You choose to stay. A person may be born in an apartment, but that doesn't mean they can live there rent free for the rest of their life. And yes, you are not just free to walk into some other country and live there. But nor are you are allowed to walk onto someone else's property and live on it.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  I'm not sure if your reasoning for this is the same as our mutual friend MM's, but I've been meaning to address it, so I might as well do that here. To take your position, I think you first have to admit that USG is the de facto owner of all US territory. You, MM, and I would probably have no problem admitting this, but most people would have trouble with it. But even after we admit this, we still need to ask if this ownership ought to be treated as legitimate, and there I disagree with MM.
  - bokonist 17y ago
    I think that the principle of Adverse Possession applies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession ). If USG is not the legitimate title holder of middle-North America, who is?
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      Why should adverse possession apply? One use for it is to establish who the de facto owner is, but that is of course unnecessary here. Another is to provide more security for property owners -- does the most powerful corporation in the history of the world need that from us? Third, since adverse possession is based on the doctrine of laches, if it applies here doesn't England have a stronger claim to ownership? Also, if we are applying common law principles, I contend that USG has in the past engaged in massive fraud by pretending it is not the actual owner, and continues to do so today. When we also consider the violent means it has used to acquire and maintain ownership, we have force and fraud -- enough to disqualify USG as a legitimate title holder. > If USG is not the legitimate title holder of middle-North America, who is? I admit, the answer is unclear, but it does seem clear that USG is not it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your reasoning is at least slightly different from MM's, then -- I don't think MM has much of an interest in this question or much of an answer to it, since he has criticized the "Rebellion" but now accepts USG's ownership.
      - bokonist 17y ago
        Adverse Possession does not care how the property was acquired. All it cares is that the owner has managed to maintain uncontested possession of it. The states originally siezed the territory from the Brits. The Feds then seized it from the states. Neither usurpation is still contested to this day. No state government maintains that the New Deal is illegitimate. Adverse Possession is not about making moral claims. It is a way to prevent violence by settling who owns what. Groups would try and manufacture claims and rally groups to regain possession. You see this happen in the Balkans and Middle East with claims going back hundreds or thousands of years. Of course, in some ways the question of legitimacy of state ownership is silly. Law between sovereigns or between a sovereign and its residents is always jungle law. The strongest wins. By definition, there is no third party to enforce the law.
        johnnybgoode 17y ago
        I don't think I disputed anything in your first two paragraphs, but let me know if you think I did. As you say, the strongest wins, so why rely on something like adverse possession? If you're saying it ought to apply here solely for the purpose of preventing violence, then, as I said, it doesn't seem necessary. USG's military and propaganda arms are powerful enough today as to make this irrelevant. Of course, if most of the residents are very dissatisfied with their sovereign and are willing to take extreme measures, they have a chance of winning regardless of immediately available firepower. This is where the question of legitimacy matters, because a sovereign will have at least some trouble if its residents do not accept its legitimacy, even if it wins in the end.

Xichekolas 17y ago

Well yeah, but I mean you can't really choose you level of tax payments as an individual. I can choose to leave and not pay any, but I can't say "better cut back on my taxes this month to make ends meet". I'm not complaining about my taxes. I think there are tons of things we could do to improve how we spent tax revenue, but I wouldn't say we are overtaxed.