aminok

13 ms·

61.
by aminok 10y ago
>Or you could destroy it by reducing the power of government to use violence to guarantee exclusionary land use. Exclusionary land use is necessary for anything as basic as having privacy in your home and personal security. Shifting taxe
62.
by aminok 10y ago
Threats of violence, and by extension government, are not always evil. It's evil when it's used to violate one's human rights. Punishing someone for driving dangerously on public roads, or stealing someone's wallet, is a
63.
by aminok 10y ago
You quoted Proudhon who considered none-natural-resource classes of property theft as well. But your argument is also absurd: >What I did claim is property rights over any scarce resource inherently reduces the liberty of others. All pro
64.
by aminok 10y ago
>When enforcing the access to scarce natural resources We could require all owners of property to pay rent for their use of natural resources, at a rate commensurate with the value of said natural resources, and there would still be tril
65.
by aminok 10y ago
>That is demonstrably wrong, given that a large number of people throughout history has enjoyed the full value that they create without enforcing property rights. That is not demonstrable at all. That's idealising the past for ideol
66.
by aminok 10y ago
>It's not slavery because you could choose not to work at all and pay no taxes. It's conditional upon you choosing to work, but the demand made upon you is illegitimate nonetheless. You choosing to work and consequently earning
67.
by aminok 10y ago
>Private (not personal) property doesn't a priori have to be more of a natural law than any of those. Private property is every bit as natural as personal property. Both are enforcing exclusive usage of some part of the natural worl
68.
by aminok 10y ago
>So if we say all taxes are theft, then we are left with no way to force everyone to contribute to public goods. An income/sales tax is not "all taxes".
69.
by aminok 10y ago
>Yes, but not all humans have a concept of 'property' the same as all other humans, nor do some humans have a concept of 'property' at all. And some human beings don't have a concept of 'self-ownership'
70.
by aminok 10y ago
You can use private currency. No need to use government issued money. Yet tax laws make no distinction between trade involving government issued currency and trade involving wholly private currencies/properties. And you're making
71.
by aminok 10y ago
I am not opposed to the existence of a state, and my argument does not necessitate that it be abolished. I think there are legitimate sources of revenue that a state can rely upon, and legitimate functions it can serve in society.
72.
by aminok 10y ago
The right to private property is every bit as natural as the right to one's own body. Both come from the act of appropriating natural resources and converting it into something of greater value that is personally useful, and making exc
73.
by aminok 10y ago
Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. We could charge every appropriator of natural resources a fee commensurate with the
74.
by aminok 10y ago
>That means that only 1 person owns all resources and everyone else owns nothing. That's like saying we should not have an absolute right to be more intelligent than the average person since such a right is perfectly consistent with
75.
by aminok 10y ago
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument.
76.
by aminok 10y ago
But your body came from natural resources initially. If you do not have a legitimate right to appropriate natural resources and make exclusive use of what you transform said resources into, it follows that you cannot have a right to your ow
77.
by aminok 10y ago
>It's not absurd at all, and your first example is nonsensical. It is absolutely absurd, and my first example makes perfect sense if one has the capacity to understand what is being discussed. >There's a fundamental differen
78.
by aminok 10y ago
Natural resources that are scarce can be justifiably taxed, but the argument the parent comment paraphrased is not a Georgist one of taxing only land and other natural resources. It is claiming that no form of property rights are legitimate
79.
by aminok 10y ago
>His point is that enforcing property rights explicitly deprives others. If something is scarce, then the moment I wall it off, others become poorer for it. That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying preventing people from f
80.
by aminok 10y ago
In most cases, it's not a problem defining what one's own wealth is. If I receive currency in private trade, that's my own wealth. The fact that the government needs me to surrender my privacy and disclose how much currency I
81.
by aminok 10y ago
Throwing someone in prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade is no less egregious a violation of human rights than invading their privacy or their right to free speech. The right to control one&
82.
Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right(blog.coinbase.com)
106 points by aminok 10y ago|275 comments
83.
by aminok 10y ago
>unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone". It's doing it on a larger scale. You're implying the people of the town somehow gain a right to the capital on account of the owners of
84.
by aminok 10y ago
That's a lie. You implied that firing people (ending the relationship) is violation of the worker's rights: >And with this awesome nugget of sterling wrongness, we learn that the bubble in which you live apparently excludes th
85.
by aminok 10y ago
>...except when the boardroom does it, and boardrooms do it all day every day, in far, far greater measure than the governments in our business-run society. That reality is what makes the word "freedom" in your mouth SO adorabl
86.
by aminok 10y ago
>The problem is this adorable libertarian dedication to freedom and voluntary interactions naturally ends the second any employer or commercial neighbor says it ends. Such an arrangement produces freedom for the boardroom and nobody else
87.
by aminok 10y ago
How utterly shameful that programs based on imprisoning people who refuse to hand over a share of all currency they receive in private trade are the primary political objective of major subsections of the population (the 'left').
88.
How to save yourself from chasing futuristic red herrings (2009)(unenumerated.blogspot.com)
1 points by aminok 10y ago|0 comments
89.
by aminok 10y ago
Whether my conscience is affected by prevailing cultural norms won't stop me from opposing slavery, or the imprisonment of those who refuse to hand over a share of all currency they receive in private trade. We must ultimately live by
90.
by aminok 10y ago
>When that something is a "think tank", adults understand that what it produces is intellectual ammunition for increased privatization and reduced protections for consumers, employees and neighbors of business. In this case, ve

More ›