Topic: Myrkul Sells AnCap... - page 4. (Read 8726 times)

When it comes right down to it - the entire concept of ownership depends on force (and thus aggression) to define it.

Stake out a claim, defend it from all comers until everyone decides that it belongs to you --- aka the cost of invading you is considered too high because you keep winning. Historically this is how wars get started. Family vs Family - Tribe vs Tribe - State vs State.

I think the very idea of ownership goes against the NAP. One more reason that ancap would never survive for long.

I never made that exact distinction.  Wrong, those are your words.

I reject the notion you put forth based. [I assume on self-ownership?]

Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

I am not the only claimant on my output

AnCap has not such path at this time other than a violent revolution

Wrong. You made an assertion that one can own property without self-ownership. We are determining how, and the burden of proof lies upon you.

I'm not even an anarchist, but this line of reasoning is faulty on your part.  The early American colonists established ownership via homesteadong. The marked off a plot of and that no one seemed to have yet, and began to work it.  There was even a term for it at the time, 'corn rights'.  Only later did a state arise and recognize those existing claims.  A community is required, but a community does not a government make.  An ancap society is as likely to be communal as any other.

Regardless if you have state governments or republic representation, it is still and government and they historically have required taxes for certain basic services.  Up to this point, AnCap advocates can not handle having a "required" tax.  That has been the real hangup.  They somehow think this come into this world with no required claims to them.   Honestly I think that notion is ridiculous.   Look, I want to pay a small a tax that is reasonable but the thought of none at all is just odd and I am quite sure I would see a decline of service.

Homesteading is over with, all land has claim so it is pointless to talk about that in current days.   If we are going to discuss proposals, they should have a realistic path to be implemented.   AnCap has not such path at this time other than a violent revolution,  we would be against a large portion of their core beliefs. 

The burden of proof is on AnCap and not the other way around.   

I knew I found the weakness earlier in this AnCap and this line of reasoning.  The burden of proof is on AnCap and not the other way around.   

They can't even understand that you are born "into" a world with set laws and customs that operated before they got their life/liberty. 

Yeah, yeah... I think I can answer that one: via "homesteading" and all that. However, your appeal to 'legitimacy' seems hypocritical. Surely legitimacy is a community value, not an individualist value? By claiming that some methods (of e.g.: applying the label of "private property" to hitherto unspoiled lands) possess legitimacy, it sounds like you're rationalising your greed/territorial instincts. As an individualist, you don't really believe in legitimacy, since that is an appeal to an external authority such as a community with majority rule.

Usually payment is in some form of value like money.

I guess we would need to research a specific claim to give you that information.

With what?
And how did the original owner get the claim on the land?

The purchase price for land should be all in and you pay for the maintenance of your utilities and access

Well, yes, we are making a little progress. You feel that land is something you should be able to own without any other claim on it. But there's a bit of a disconnect. How? How does one establish such a claim on land?

If they can legitimately force you to give it up involuntarily, then their claim is higher to it than yours.

So, I ask again, Who has a higher clam than you to you?

Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

Dalkore, just caught up reading the rest of your arguments. The gist of your claim is that, since you were born in this society that provided you, you now "owe" that society for the things it provided. Fair enough. So, tell me, how much is that debt, exactly, and how can one pay it off? I'm not even suggesting "i paid of my debt, so now I can ignore rules and laws when I'm visiting others or am on public property." Rules that others establish for their own property I'm fine with. I mean, how much do I have to pay to buy back the claims that the state has laid on me and my own property, so that I can be free  to have my own rules on the land I own, and pay taxes only for services  I want?

You only real argument is that somehow you claim you have not obligations to anyone except yourself.   That is a tough position to defend when we use reason and logic.  I know you will defend it but you will be wrong unless you have something better to add than "self-ownership" and Youtube video about someones views on Liberty.  

I reject the premise that you believe you are the SOLE claimant to your output in the country you reside in.  Also having a claimant, you shouldn't automatically assume that claim is higher than mine, it is in addition. 

I asked a question.

Wouldn't there be a lot of hitmen, who are hired to kill people anonymously?