Topic: Defend Taxation - page 5. (Read 6171 times)

Why is AnCap anything but a bunch of micro states, each with their own model of taxes and fees? And why is that better, for fuck's sake?

Allow me to give this a shot. I reject the is=ought argument that since bad states are widespread they are morally justified. IMHO my perspective is similar to Bjork's.

However, I don't buy into this "mixing labor with land makes the land mine". If you initiate force against me that's aggression, even if you think I'm trespassing. For all the talk of a voluntary society, I DON'T volunteer for this system of landed property, I don't consent to you (or your ancestors) claiming it. Landowners only pay a fraction of what their land is worth, and the ONLY way that private land ownership can be morally justified is if owners reimburse everyone who has been deprived of its use at 100% of its value.

That being said, we don't need a state to solve this problem: geoanarchism would be tolerable too, and I think geoist communities would outcompete "strong land rights" market anarchist groups. It might just be called "rent" and not "tax" but would amount to the same thing. That's why I don't mind even helping the AnCaps win; I think they're just wrong about one economic concept in a way that would solve itself in a free society.

But until that day, I've got no objections to land/pollution/extraction/spectrum/etc taxes.

How else would it be? Think in particular of the ocean, and especially how fluid it is, both in terms of its water, and in terms of the life within it, and migratory needs of the life. The landscape is no different, especially since I've gone over ecosystem services with you.

By acquiring it voluntarily or by homesteading an unowned resource. There's no violence in either case.


This is false. Nobody's right is being violated there, if you're claiming unowned resources by mixing your labor to it. If nobody owned that resource, how could someone have their rights violated? Who was there before?
The homesteading principle minimizes conflicts. Any other alternative will either (1) increase conflicts, (2) end-up with a "cast society", where some have more rights than others or (3) follow the "universal communism" path, that I comment below.


That's unfeasible. An ethical code that follows the "everybody owns everything equally" path would necessarily destroy mankind if followed rigorously. You wouldn't be allowed to do anything without consent from everybody else. You couldn't even use your own body (which wouldn't be yours btw, but equally shared by everybody else) without consent from others. But how would they even give their consent if they can't legitimately use their own bodies without consent from everybody?

You're asking good questions and you seem to have a much higher than average understanding. If you haven't already, I suggest you read Hoppe's texts on the ethics of private property. He can clearly explain what I'm writing here in much better words. A reading suggestion: https://mises.org/daily/1646/The-Ethics-and-Economics-of-Private-Property


You're wrongly assuming everybody else had a claim to the resource in question. There's no reason to assume that. You have no right to be able to use every resource available.


Property is just. But taxation, as done by practically every state in this world, is not. They'd have to be legitimate owners of the land they claim, what they obviously aren't.

Well, let's stick with "Labor entitles one to ownership", since denying property is just itself destroys any argument for taxation.

Where did government "mix it's labor with the land"? Who actually did that, since "government" isn't a person? And, most importantly, where did I sign an agreement to the effect that my residing here was subject to paying taxes?

Even assuming all of that, What kind of "Landlord" locks up tenants who don't pay? What kind of "landlord" brutalizes tenants who don't pay? What kind of "landlord" kills tenants who don't pay?

Granted, the only way to come to this conclusion is to accept the premise "labor entitles own to ownership" as truth.  If one sticks to the Rousseau argument then property itself is not-just (either that, or violence is just ?)...

edit: I'm off to sleep.

Well, did they? did they "mix their labor with the land", and then enter a rental agreement with a tenant?

I'd say probably no on the first part, and definitely no on the second part. Looks like you're stuck where FirstAscent self-destructed... the rental agreement.

Well that works I suppose .  So now the question is did the "government" put "work" in and justly acquire their "land" and therefore have the right to levy taxes?   

Well, simple:
The other people had not worked on that land, and you had. Work entitles you to ownership, and since they had not worked on the land, they had no claim on it.

I agree with Locke, that work entitles one to ownership.  I don't really have a good reason for that belief though.  I can't seem to convince myself how it was "not" a violence for the first man to "claim" property.

But what about you, what do you say?

John Locke would say that work entitles one to ownership.  His followers/thinkers claim that if one puts work into something, he necessarily owns it.  Incidentally, Karl Marx thinks the same thing...  Locke would say that you would own the land because you planted wheat, and it would be just for you to defend the wheat from others.

Rousseau would say that you can plant the wheat if you want, but that does not entitle you to ownership of the land.. OR of the wheat.  Anyone can just come take the wheat from you (well, he would claim you never owned it anyways) essentially..

That's an interesting perspective. What if, instead of fencing it off, I plant wheat? Does that destroy the right of another to plant begonias?

Yes.  They were free to roam/use the land if they so chose.  They may never use the land but they still had the right too if they were so inclined.  The fencing off of a plot destroys that "right"

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

I edited my argument for further clarification.


yes

This is an interesting argument. Decidedly flawed, but interesting.

If I stake a claim of unowned, virgin forest, am I thereby committing a violence on everyone else?

Taxation is payment to your country/government for their "service" of allowing you to live/reside in their "property".

Now, you said that this was not a fair argument because countries don't really "own" their land because they claimed it through violence etc, but I disagree.  How else does one claim/own land (if not through violence)?  This goes back to John locke and Rousseau's ideas about property, but it is not possible for anyone to own anything without committing a "violence" against others.  If one wishes to claim land/property he is necessarily impeding on the rights of others by saying that they cannot enter/use this property now, he is committing a "violence" against them.

Imagine a "state of nature" where everybody owned/shared everything (no property). The first man to "claim land" is directly impeding on the rights of others by taking their property/preventing them from "using" the land that they were once able to use.

I suppose one could also imagine the "state of nature" as existing where nobody owns anything.  Still, a person claiming land and fencing out others is impeding on the "rights" of the others to possibly claim that land... This is perhaps weak, but still valid IMO.

I think there are only 2 rational conclusions:
1. Property is immoral and not-just.  Perhaps a "state of nature" as Rousseau described is what is "just"
2. property, and thus taxation, is "just"

Except that's not an argument for taxes. It's an argument for voluntary delegation, but not taxation. Voluntary delegation, FirstAscent's "bundled services" can, and probably would, since they're so convenient, exist in an AnCap society, but like cable TV, or insurance policies, you would get to choose which bundle.

The part where you say you don't care, but keep posting.