Topic: Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands (Read 5511 times)

Kind of sugar coating the truth.  The set of rules which force the conclusion that "taxation is wrong" includes the rule "taxation is wrong".  The problem,  isn't finding a set of premises which force some conclusion.  It's getting a set of premises which are mutually agreed on which force a conclusion.

Let's see if I can tell you bitcoin2cash's argument.   Well obviously it's going to head toward taxation === stealing.

Which will of course require the definition of "stealing".   Let's take a stab at that - maybe something like. Stealing is taking something which doesn't belong to you?   Which of course brings us to the definition of the term "belong".  Which is, as others have mentioned outside of crazy religious ideas is purely a social construct.  Ok now we have a problem.  Since it's a social construct it's the result of what people agree to however clearly not everyone can have a completely different idea as to what ownership is.  Clearly everyone's ideas of this are not the same.  bitcoin2cash has to believe that 'belong' means any and all rights are his/hers.  Except the right to harm (in various ways) other people or their property and he has to believe that every other persons beliefs are incorrect.  Now again this belief probably can't be proved.  I'm sure s/he will call it "axiomatic".  So this belief has to be irrational.  

What did I used to say about bitcoin2cash - that all s/hes doing is wrapping is presuppositions in his definitions?  Also known as begging the question.


I think this clarifies our points.   Despite much fanfare how the ignore-athon is about curbing insults.   That is the use of invective.    It's actually about wanting to shut out ideas you don't like.   Let me be clear that bitcoin2cash has every right, in my book to avoid talking about things he is uncomfortable talking about - however he has no right to lie about why he's doing it.

I guess your beliefs are safer if nobody disagrees with you.

Now you're ignored. Congratulations.

It's tough for him to swallow that truth. It's much more fun for him to think of himself as a rebel and an independent thinker.

EDIT: bitcoin2cash, now you can see what he said, as I quoted it for you.

AyeYo, I can't see what you say because you are on ignore. I assume it's something sarcastic or insulting. If you want to waste your time talking to someone that doesn't read what you write, carry on.

The current system IS voluntary.  You can leave any time you wish.  No one is forcing you to stay.  If you don't like paying the taxes, are unhappy with the services, or just want a change of scenery, you're free to go.

The part in bold is key. You need to realize that I want all human interactions to be voluntary. If people voluntarily come together and create a government and economic system, that's exactly what I want. It could be capitalism, communism, syndicalism, whatever. The key is that it's voluntary. If you think that a system that exists exactly like the current one but with the added feature that it's voluntary is a failure of my goals then you clearly don't understand my goals.


I wasn't clear about what kind of government I'm against since, strictly speaking, even a chess club has a government. As I mentioned above, I'm not against governments that are voluntary. I'm not against the chess club voting on a president and passing rules, etc. I'm against government that's forced upon some people against their will, aka states.


If you keep descending into this hostile and rude kind of language, you will find yourself being ignored. I've been nothing but polite to you so I expect the same courtesy. There's no reason why we can't debate this in a calm manner. Nothing we say here is going to make much difference. The stakes are as low as they can be. If you don't have the patience for this then don't bother talking to me.

There is a nice way to put what you said. You're claiming that my views are only opinions, not facts. I agree with that. There's what is known as the is-ought gap. There's no fact about whether or not you should engage me in debate or simply shoot me in the head to get what you want. However, once you agree to certain ground rules, it logically follows that taxation and other forms of involuntary interactions aren't legitimate. I can prove to you that stealing is wrong but once you agree that it is, you have to abandon taxation.

...and some people born into this society will be under some contracts that they never agreed to.   The simple and obvious paradox that separates the sane Libertarians (utilitarians) from the insane (bitcoin2cash, et. al.)

It's easy to see:

Wealthy person becomes landowner of your property.   They are perfectly in their rights to take away privileges you have on your property.  Like the ability to leave (as I can own roads now) or get a home elsewhere.  You have children,  your children have signed no contract with wealthy person.  Ergo they are trespassing.  Oh, hey there are some pretty strict clauses of about trespassing in those contracts.  Now landowner owns your children as well*.

The typical brain-dead response is:  "Nobody would agree to a contract where this was possible." - Which is completely incorrect.  Probably everyone on this board agrees to contracts that limit liability for the use of a product, which restrict your usage of land, and that are subject to change without notice.   People in different social settings have signed contracts to work at a place for the rest of their lives.  People even appear to capable of signing contracts for lives beyond their current one...and pay for the privileged to be released.

So even assuming they ignore all that evidence.  They fail to see the other side of the coin.  If granting privileges to someone and all their kids and their kids kids, ad infinitum is by their own definition valuable.    How would they prevent a tiered system (rights 'haves' and 'have nots') when there is scarcity on the resource? (i.e. land).

*Now certainly someone could argue that:  Trespassers haven't agreed to your contracts so they don't need to obey.  Which I assume everyone can figure out why that's silly.  They could also argue that trespassing is something where punishments can't be determined by the landowner (i.e. the government can say that this constitutes a penalty no more than $50 which would be an  unwaiveable right).  However there are two responses to this:  i) The land owner *can* hold the parent partially responsible and essentially either put them under so much duress - all spelled out in the contract - that they are coerced into giving the landowner whatever rights they have over their child.  ii) The child can not move from that spot without constantly trespassing - for which the landowner will eventually own them. (Government would have to grant another unwaiveable right)   iii) Any of these interventions by government are really telling me what I can do with my land.  Which I thought I had complete rights over.

"Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt."
Benjamin Franklin


"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it."
Benjamin Franklin

Thats wrong.  There has never been a society without some form of government and the very concept of property is a social construct.

Correct! And in your fabled libertarian society, the citizens will band together and organize and create laws and build a government and agree to be taxed, sooner or later - just like you've agreed to be taxed by your HOA.


Incorrect. Land existed before government. Property (meaning land which is owned) didn't exist until there was collective recognition of property lines, and enforcement of ownership, which implies a lot of things, such as laws, rules, defense, social contracts, etc. In the specific instance of your ownership of property in the United States, it is not what you believe it should be, but what the federal and local governments have decided it is. You can cry a river the rest of your life that it isn't working the way you think it should, but there is no magical book which states that your interpretation is "The Interpretation".

No. That's known as the ad coelum doctrine. I own what I homestead. I haven't been to the center of the Earth. You can tunnel below my property and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't damage my land i.e. you can't cause me to cave in.

Humans create governments and grant governments authority, not the other way around. Property existed before government. Government is based on consent of the governed.

In general, you could say it does. At its discretion, it can assign a property deed to you that will grant you certain rights to the land, and you can reassign that property deed to another and receive payment in doing so. As I was telling bitcoin2cash, you are mistaken if you believe land ownership means quite as much as you think it does.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Assume that land ownership means that you own the surface dirt of your property to a depth of fifty feet. Now, when you stand upon your property's dirt, you are standing on something that you own. However, your physical self is occupying the space above the dirt, and thus residing in the atmosphere of the host nation. By doing so, you are occupying their space, and subject to their laws.

It's irrelevant whether the above thought experiment is actually true or not. The point is, it serves to illustrate that land ownership is not exactly what you think it is.

It would depend on what defines a contract.  I don't consider vague, implicit contracts that are never explicitly stated or signed to be valid.  Do you?


The question is, does the government own all the land in it's geographic "domain"?

You keep saying things like this. You seem to have this notion that having title to some land means that you have immunity from the rest of the Universe while within the boundaries of your property line. You have this sense that a property deed (which is a piece of paper and perhaps a digital record on file in a county recorder's office) confers upon you some fundamental physical law.

That is where you are wrong. Land ownership is nothing more than a social contract that does not necessarily give you the complete set of rights that you believe it does. To put it bluntly, the neurons inside your head have one interpretation of what it means to own property in the United States, and the neurons inside other people's heads quite possibly all have slightly different interpretations of it. Your best bet is to see what the neurons inside a judge's head believe.

Also, I'd be curious to know how deep you believe your land ownership goes. Assuming your parcel of land is square, do you naively believe your ownership is an inverted pyramid with its apex at the center of the Earth?

The point is, you don't really know what land ownership is. You only think you do, based on your ideal interpretation of it.

No, because that would assume that the government owns everything. 


Again, you're assuming that the government owns everything. I'm not living in Uncle Sam's house.


Don't get personal. I don't have any such fantasies nor did I imply I was that farmer. It was meant to illustrate the facts of history.


By continuing to live in your house instead of leaving the country you are agreeing to follow my rules? No, because I don't own your property. The government doesn't own mine.

Tell me, do you fantasize all the time that you are that farmer? Do you fantasize that you were here before the US government? Or wait - maybe I have it wrong! Let me guess - that home you own, the one with the HOA - you've owned it for several centuries.

You see, you aren't that farmer. When you bought your house, not only did you enter into an agreement with the HOA, you decided to continue to be a US citizen and resident of the US in addition to being a resident of the HOA. And you decided to continue to pay your taxes, instead of moving out of the country.

By opting to not leave the nation upon, say reaching the age of 18, are you not agreeing to an implicit contract by virtue of your residence and use of its services?

Here's an example for you: let's say you were born in my household. Even better, let's say you are my child and were born in my household, and I demand payment from you to continue to live there. You counter by stating that you own your own bedroom because you bought it from me. That's fine, I say - you own the space inside the walls, but that doesn't really mean you can act with impunity and not pay me a fee to continue to live there.

You are free to leave.

Basically, you're over interpreting the concept of land ownership to mean that you can operate your own sovereign domain within another sovereign domain. Life does not really work like that - unless you're the Catholic Church and your host is Italy.

That's why it's voluntary. They owned the property.

I actually own a home and I am a member of an HOA. It's rather restrictive. My mailbox has to be a certain color. My front door has to be a certain color. I can't have window A/C units. My grass can't be above a certain height. I can't have yard sales, etc. However, before I bought the home I was told that if I didn't join the HOA, I wouldn't be allowed to buy it. I could have just said no, but I didn't.

Imagine a different scenario. There was no HOA when I bought the house and no mention of any future plans. I bought the house without any conditions. Now, one day there is a knock on my door and someone says "You're now a member of the new HOA. If you don't like it, move."

Historically, that's more accurate of the government. Do you know the history of the states? A few people moved into an area. They homesteaded some land. Eventually, a small group of people declared that that area was a state. The owner of the land wasn't consulted. The vote wasn't unanimous. One day, an agent of the state shows up to a farm. The exchange went something like this...

Agent: Hey, there. We're starting a new state.
Farmer: That's great to hear! I'm a good neighbor and I look forward to trading with you. Good luck!
Agent: No, you don't understand. You're part of this state now and you have to pay taxes.
Farmer: What?! I didn't agree to this! This is armed robbery! You're no better than a thief!
Agent: Well, you can always move.
Farmer: Move?! I've owned this land for generations. Why should I move? This is my land.
Agent: Not anymore.

For me the legitimacy would depend on the terms of the contract I signed when I bought the property. If I voluntarily buy property within a homeowners association and sign a contract saying I will abide by the decisions of the council, senate, leadership, whatever, then it is legitimate and I cannot complain. Only leave. If I already own the property and my neighbors form a homeowners association and THEN try to force me to abide by their decisions, it is illegitimate.

With government I have signed no contract and so am not legitimately bound to any set of rules. I submit because of fear of reprisal. This is a big difference.