you are kidding right?
It does? [:)]
Be carful not to get into semantics. If I choose not to pay my rent it is me aggressing against the landlord, not the other way around. I am effectively stealing from him.
Why did you respond with this?
But then forceful extraction is no problem for taxation anymore than it is for rent collection. You have to agrue why that force is unjust.
ok, how about this, if rent is due to the owner its just. if its not due its unjust.
taxation is never due to the state. they claim it is, but they are lying
What do you need to have to make a claim just or legitimate?
Seems off topic doesn’t it?
Forceful extraction is one way. One person steals from another.
So what you seem to be implying is that the state owns a monopoly over a geographical region and we are paying rent on that land? Is that what your insinuating? If so then we’d be begging the question that the state actually owns a monopoly over an entire geographical region, and that land owners are not land owners but serfs paying rent to their lord.
All I see are your assertions. It is undue, if someone says otherwise he is lying (rather than being wrong). Why is it never due?
No it doesn’t. But your false analogy of rent collection does beg the question that the government owns the land and is simply collecting rent. That needs to be demonstrated.
the requirement is purely negative. claim what you want as long as you dont initiate aggression.
for example you initiate aggression against those that you coerce rent from that are not your tenants. illegitimate
you, do not initiate aggression against those that you coerce rent from that are your tenants, who must pay you rent to earn your consent to dwell there for the next period. legitimate.
its never due, since they never demonstrate that they own anything that you owe them for the use of.
But law is an extension of force. If you cannot back up your assertion either way, it’s irrelevant. Right?
We establish the precedent of just cause in legal systems, which is good, you have to prove your claim. But ultimately, you have to have the power to back up your claim. That’s why the courts have the power of the police behind them. So people will obey the rulings.
I mean you could say the government’s power to tax is gained through force but that’s how all powers are gained.
That’s why I said taxation has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It’s just a consequence of power.
In the same way, if a person rents out an apartment to me but they have no way of collecting, I owe them nothing.
Like, for instance, I could claim right now that you owe me money. I could even produce documents that say you do. But if I had absolutely no way of enforcing said claim and no one who could enforce it for me, it’s an erroneous claim.
No it’s not. It’s just temporarily not enforceable, not erroneous.
Does theft have nothing to do with morals or ethics?
its naive to separate the ability to apply force from the ability persuade others to cooperate with you in ventures like, teaming up with you to apply force. things like the war of American independence involved people adopting force to reject the forces already in place and coercing them. Do you think that spot of history would have worked out the same way with no mention of moral terms like injustice, i.e. the injustice of tyranny, etc. ? the belief in the moral goodness of liberty? (at least for whites [:O])
Ok fine. But doesn’t that highlight how important enforcement is? I mean basically…anyone can make a claim against anyone if they have the force to back it up. And a false claim can only be falsified by someone who has the power to protect the wrongly accused.
The government’s claim isn’t just. But it is backed up by force. Unless we can take that power away from them or match their power with a greater one of our own, they’re going to keep sending us a bill and we’re going to keep paying it.
It’s not right but it happens anyways.
Not to me. If I can’t protect my stuff, it’s not going to be mine for long. That’s why I have the police. They help protect me.
Interestingly enough, I found this to be the central theme of the movie Avatar. It’s the reason I didn’t find the movie to be leftist at all. I thought it was an allegory of the American Revolution.
Well…that’s all rhetoric though. In the end, we had the power to beat the British. They lost their claim on us as a result. Motivating the troops and the public at large is certainly important and I think that’s where talk of morals and ethics comes into play.
you are trying to have it both ways. morals and ethics are ‘irrelevant’ and ‘important to motivate people’.
evidence? argument?
Might makes right?