Topic: Defend Taxation - page 4. (Read 6171 times)

1. A court judgment? Tax is, "Money demanded by the state, to fund it's operations" (paraphrasing the definition from my earlier post)

2. No, you have to pay land owners, or be homeless. Significant difference, and still a false dichotomy. There are other ways of acquiring land than purchasing it. You can inherit it, for instance. You also have to work (in some manner) in order to eat. Is that an injustice, as well?

1. What do you call it when the state collects these funds for the purpose of dividing it up between victims? Maybe I've been against taxes all along. 

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value
It does include all future rents, but discounted due to risk like you describe. So yeah, I have to either pay landlords or die. Telling me to just offer more is like telling you to just convince people to vote differently.

1. No, taxes, by definition, go to the state. Restitution goes to the victim.

2. I'm not familiar with the abbreviation "NPV", but purchasing land does not include the value of all future rents. It includes the current value of that land. All you have to do is offer enough that the owner will forgo those future (potential) rents, for the immediate (definite) purchase price.

1. If we use a state to organize compulsory restitution, that is a tax. Drop the semantics.

2. If all land is owned, how do I get my own without paying the NPV of all its future rents?

And you haven't explained how anything anyone here proposes is a birth tax.

1. That's restitution, not tax.

2. False dichotomy. Get your own land, pay no rent.

Bullshit. If you poison everyone's air, we're justified in demanding you reimburse everyone you hurt. That's a pollution tax, not a birth tax. You know this.

I was born here on earth, but you would force me to pay rent to private landowners or die. THAT'S a lot more like a birth tax if you ask me.

That is precisely what taxation is.

No one is suggesting that.

Another Island in the south pacific, presumably magicked up from the same place the first one was.

Still waiting for someone to justify someone putting a gun in my face and saying "you owe me for being born here."

Wait hold on a second. Don't dodge the question. Where does Mike go?

No, another island. You still haven't successfully defended Taxation.

What's your excuse this time?

And so you decide to go where? America? Australia? China? Syria?

Mike: "Then keep it. I'm going someplace I can actually own land. Enjoy your Island."

Mike Hawk hurts!

Consider the following story with two characters: Mike and Hawk.

Hawk owns an island in the south Pacific. It is his own private domain. He's the ultimate NAPster, free from any government. He recently met Mike, an aspiring NAPster. He invites Mike to come visit his island.

The two fellows sit on Hawk's veranda, sipping drinks and admiring the expanse of Hawk's beautiful island. A conversation ensues.

Hawk: "Why don't you stay here? I'll sell you a ten acre parcel on the south side of the island."

Mike: "Oh, I'd love that. I can live the NAP dream here."

Hawk: "Yes. There are some terms you must agree with though, as this is my island. Remember, I'm a NAPster true and true, and since this is my island, I make the rules."

Mike: "Uh, what are those?"

Hawk: "Well, when you buy that parcel of land from me, I'll grant you ownership rights, but they won't be like the ownership rights I have."

Mike: "Uhhh..."

Hawk: "When you buy the parcel, you'll have the right to sell it to someone else down the road. However, you'll have to pay me an annual fee while you own it based on my assessment of the land's value. Furthermore, any business you conduct on your property will be subject to various taxes and such."

Mike: "Hey, that doesn't sound right."

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

I'm not arguing that states have any more right to claim land than you do. The entire earth belongs to the people of earth and states are not legitimate "owners". My claim is that the state can be a useful tool to reimburse the public for such widespread (and arguably practical) aggression. Democratic control over land isn't theft because privatizing it in the FIRST place was the theft.

I'm curious, do the AnCaps here think that after the revolution is over, the masses will be content to watch us enjoy our Bitcoin mansions tax-free? You're going to have to pay them some kind of protection money or provide a public good, or someone working for your private security will get rich off your assassination market.

Hey, we didn't use war to get Alaska

You're funny. Why do you make the following assumptions:

1. Moving to another city-state would be easier than moving to another country (aside from language)?

2. City-states wouldn't merge for security and/or economies of scale?

3. Free trade between city-states would magically be optimal the way you see it?

4. Trade and travel across city-states would not be fraught with transit fees, tariffs, taxes, tolls and so on?

Then read Hoppe's text. The one I linked to Bjork above is a good start.
There's really no acceptable alternative to the homesteading principle.

But, even if you don't yet accept homesteading, the question of why, for instance, the Brazilian government claim to the Amazon is valid and mine (or anybody else's claim) isn't stays open.
Plus the fact that all modern states used war to establish their territories. Justifying taxation by saying that states are legitimate owners of lands they took by force is justifying theft by theft.

1. That's not what AnCap is.
2. A "city-state world" would be much, much better than the current world, nevertheless. And that's simply due to competition. If it's easy to emigrate, you can "vote with your feet". Emigrating is quite tough when you have to cut your roots and links. But when it's just moving to another city 100km away, you're not cutting any serious root, you won't face language/cultural barriers etc. In a city-state world, "bad states" would easily lose their subjects to the neighboring, "less-bad states". Such competition would push good policies and kill bad policies. Think of state subjects as "costumers of governance", which in this scenario can change their "governance providers" much easier. In our current world, changing your "governance provider" is something extremely expensive (difficult) in many ways, and "startup governments" are a practical impossibility. We are hostages of inefficient monopolies.
3. Now change "moving away to a neighboring state" for "resigning your current contract and signing a new one" and you have perhaps a summary of what's actually a decentralized law system (AnCap)
 
EDIT: On the subject of competitive governance, I'd recommend this nice talk by Patri Friedman. There's also this blog.