4 ms·

Ah, the favorite of all favorites: the "taxes (or, any government regulations involving income) are theft" argument! Following this line of thinking... is it "

by rmxt 11y ago

Ah, the favorite of all favorites: the "taxes (or, any government regulations involving income) are theft" argument! Following this line of thinking... is it "stealing" when schools are built, police stations are funded, or sanitation workers are paid to pick up trash? Starting from your point of view will likely not get far in a discussion that begins with "rent controls".

ancap 11y ago
Please explain how forcibly taking someone's money is not theft.
- rmxt 11y ago
  It's not even remotely germane to this discussion, but the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair. It's not theft if it's consensual. Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this "theft" altogether and are in the NYC area, I know some nice places in Van Cortlandt Park where you can set up a log cabin and forget about taxes.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ancap 11y ago
    >the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair Allow me to test this theory (that merely living in a society gives consent to what would otherwise be theft) with an analogy: You have two routes to work, route A and route B. On route A it takes you 10 minutes to get to work but you are guaranteed to be mugged. On route B, it takes you 45 minutes to get to work and you won't get mugged. If for whatever reason, perhaps you are running late and if you don't get to work on time you will be fired, you choose to take route A, are you consenting to be mugged? I certainly think not. Really, your theory is not so much about consent as much as it is about the origins of rights. It sounds like you are a believer that rights originate from society (government), which is something I would disagree with. > Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Au contraire! Most people tend to handle these kind of political topics in a very utilitarian way; "which choice is most efficient?", or if you have a horse in the race, "which will net me the most benefit?". While I agree that rent control is terrible economic policy, I want more people to approach this issue, and other political issues, in a principled manner. Rent control is theft, and it should be recognized as such.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      Welcome to toll roads. We've been doing this for 2,500 years. Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. Your analogies belie reality. These are choices made every day by millions of Americans. Very few people consider this theft. They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know where rights derive from, nor am I really interested in figuring that out in a discussion regarding rent control. I am a utilitarian, but I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term. Rent control in its current NYC might not be the answer, but, in general, housing programs ensure that all people in a relatively rich society (USA) have one of their basic needs met. People that don't have their basic needs met, whether those needs are met through their own action or through cooperation with others, tend to get violent. To be equally extreme as you: please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia.
      - ancap 11y ago
        >Welcome to toll roads Perhaps you have a very different idea of what mugging involves. Generally mugging means you are physically assaulted and then your property is forcibly taken from you. >Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. You didn't answer the question. In the scenario if the person takes route A they are guaranteed to be mugged. If they take route A, for whatever reason, are they consenting to be mugged? >Your analogies belie reality You've never taken a philosophy class or participated in any thought exercises involving moral dilemmas? The purpose of the analogy is not make a perfect model of the world. It is to test your theory on consent. >They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know what a "NIMBY" game is and I'm not sure why you introduced the idea of revolting. Why bring up red herrings? >I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term It is unfortunate that you have a negative bias against free markets, but it is not surprising. Most people have false beliefs about what a "free market" is. >please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia. It's clear that you don't know what my "utopia" is? Why would police be "non-existent"? I don't have a mansion, but I guess if it's a utopia I might as well have one. And as long as it is a utopia why would there be poor? Why are you so occupied with the idea of violent revolt? Is this a non sequitur attempting to lead people to believe that a free market inevitably results in violence?

by rmxt 11y ago

ancap 11y ago

Please explain how forcibly taking someone's money is not theft.

rmxt 11y ago
It's not even remotely germane to this discussion, but the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair. It's not theft if it's consensual. Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this "theft" altogether and are in the NYC area, I know some nice places in Van Cortlandt Park where you can set up a log cabin and forget about taxes.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ancap 11y ago
  >the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair Allow me to test this theory (that merely living in a society gives consent to what would otherwise be theft) with an analogy: You have two routes to work, route A and route B. On route A it takes you 10 minutes to get to work but you are guaranteed to be mugged. On route B, it takes you 45 minutes to get to work and you won't get mugged. If for whatever reason, perhaps you are running late and if you don't get to work on time you will be fired, you choose to take route A, are you consenting to be mugged? I certainly think not. Really, your theory is not so much about consent as much as it is about the origins of rights. It sounds like you are a believer that rights originate from society (government), which is something I would disagree with. > Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Au contraire! Most people tend to handle these kind of political topics in a very utilitarian way; "which choice is most efficient?", or if you have a horse in the race, "which will net me the most benefit?". While I agree that rent control is terrible economic policy, I want more people to approach this issue, and other political issues, in a principled manner. Rent control is theft, and it should be recognized as such.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Welcome to toll roads. We've been doing this for 2,500 years. Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. Your analogies belie reality. These are choices made every day by millions of Americans. Very few people consider this theft. They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know where rights derive from, nor am I really interested in figuring that out in a discussion regarding rent control. I am a utilitarian, but I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term. Rent control in its current NYC might not be the answer, but, in general, housing programs ensure that all people in a relatively rich society (USA) have one of their basic needs met. People that don't have their basic needs met, whether those needs are met through their own action or through cooperation with others, tend to get violent. To be equally extreme as you: please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia.
    - ancap 11y ago
      >Welcome to toll roads Perhaps you have a very different idea of what mugging involves. Generally mugging means you are physically assaulted and then your property is forcibly taken from you. >Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. You didn't answer the question. In the scenario if the person takes route A they are guaranteed to be mugged. If they take route A, for whatever reason, are they consenting to be mugged? >Your analogies belie reality You've never taken a philosophy class or participated in any thought exercises involving moral dilemmas? The purpose of the analogy is not make a perfect model of the world. It is to test your theory on consent. >They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know what a "NIMBY" game is and I'm not sure why you introduced the idea of revolting. Why bring up red herrings? >I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term It is unfortunate that you have a negative bias against free markets, but it is not surprising. Most people have false beliefs about what a "free market" is. >please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia. It's clear that you don't know what my "utopia" is? Why would police be "non-existent"? I don't have a mansion, but I guess if it's a utopia I might as well have one. And as long as it is a utopia why would there be poor? Why are you so occupied with the idea of violent revolt? Is this a non sequitur attempting to lead people to believe that a free market inevitably results in violence?