I am from the UK after all…
cup of tea anyone?
This thread could have very well ended just here, let me quote Clayton:
“Taxation” is a euphemism
Exactly. Property can only be established by entities that have supremacy of violence, which tends to be the state.
That depends. It remains a precedent in the context that it challenges the property rights established by the state. If the state then doesnt interfere, the bullys right to lunch box will become an established property right. Again, notice the difference between reality(in reality, the bully has a right to lunch box, as that is what has been established) and libertarian fantasy(the bully does not have the right to property, the bully should does have a right to liberty). Both of the libertarian claims do not reflect reality, they are incorrect in the context of a theory describing reality, and remain fantasies.
This is exactly not true. When you go buy yourself shoes, for example, do you not think that the act you are engaging in, that is, handing out the money, and the act the salesman commits, that is, handing out the shoes, both confirm implicitly each other’s property rights. You do not say out loud: “I do respect your property rights, that is why I will not kill you and then steal what I want.”, but the fact that you do not do so, but rather cooperate, is a performative confirmation of an implicit rule already followed before the experience of cooperation. Divison of labour and in that matter any human cooperation can exist with non-violent law. It will exist even in a better condition. The argument that a State as an sovereign, independend party to private contracts is needed for such contracts to exist at all or at a biggest amount relatively to a condition where there is no State is a false argument. Human cooperation exist because of the fact that it renders more material prosperity and people recognize this feature of it. You do not murder not because there is a State that will punish you if you do. And those that do murder can be dealt with with private law.
It is not an ESTABLISHED property right that allows for taxation. I own my money and have a legitimate claim to it with regards to established property law. It is theft that has been written in to law that allows for taxation regardless that I have a valid claim to my property (money).
No one can theoretically outlaw your property rights. It is like to say: “From now on there is law which says Jack Roberts is not the ultimate decision-maker of the body he occupies”. This makes no sense. It is trying to control something that is out of the power reach of humans. It is like trying to legislate the operation of the Sun. In practice you can be forced into slave labour but this does not change the unalterable fact that you are the ultimate decision-maker of your body. The same goes for your property that is outside the physical realm of your body. When the State taxes you, i.e., steals from you, what is taxed away is still something that you have property rights to. You are currently not in possession of it, the State is, but you are still the only one human in the world that has got legitimate claim for control over this property.
Not if you’re the only human thinking so. There’s no legitimacy outside the realm of intersubjective human valuations. I could homestead the known universe by urinating a full circle around me. But I could legitimately claim ownership over thusly acquired property only if most others acknowledged it as mine, as well. Cosmic (objective) rights and cosmic (objective) legitimacy are figments of human imagination.
In the real world, you make (what you perceive to be) your property legitimately yours by convincing most others that it would be in their best interest to acknowledge it as such. I’m afraid, this is as good as it will ever get for any set of human agents larger than one.
There exists only one legitimate settlement of the property rights. It is the one that is infringed upon when violence is introduced and human cooperation is hindered by compulsion. This legitimate settlement is legitimate precisely because is only produced when humans employ rationalization and cooperation and not violence and compulsion. To make it simple:
If people choose X, which stands for cooperation, whatever the outcome - it is legitimate. Hence, every property acquired in accordance with the homesteading principle is legitimate acquisition. Because homesteading principle is the only logically coherent principle that resolves property conflicts.
If people choose Y, which stands for violence (i.e. they abandon rationalization and instead act in a beastly manner), whatever the outcome - it is illegitimate.
I believe you mistake legitimate with lawful. These are two different meanings.
Then private property could as easily be made illegitimate (or theft) according to your criteria above. Surely you’re not cooperating (rather acting in a beastly manner) by forcing people off (what you percieve to be) exclusively your land. Or at least some may think so. You’re definitely in trouble if most others thought so.
As I see it, it comes down to the dispute what method for property (that is outside the physical realm of one’s body) acquisition is to be adopted. Why should we prefer the homesteading principle to any other possible method? Well, if the homesteading principle is the only method derived from human rationalization that is logically coherent and stands for a norm that is not in opposition to the desired goal of the very human argumentation about property rights, which is the resolution of conflicts, then acting in a way that is in harmony with this principle can not be considered beastly, and every other act that also features the acquisition of property but contradicts the principle is to be considered beastly.
When I choose to adhere to the principle and consequently acquire property in this manner and then try to protect it from others I am acting legitimately and not beastly. Indeed, the other people may think that I am the beast for not outright letting them use the property. But what they think ought to be does not in itself include per se a justification for any action that is supposed to bring about this ought condition. For if it was like this, anyone could claim anything, and any claim would be as justified as any other. But this will not solve any conflicts.
I’m glad you’ve stopped using the phrase “monopoly of violence” - thanks for the implicit concession. However, when you say “supremacy of violence”, do you mean supremacy in capability or supremacy in outcome?
Rights do not describe or reflect reality in any way. They’re noumena (in the ancient sense), not phenomena. Aside from that, your paragraph seems to be one big example of begging the question - how does the bully taking the lunch box establish a right on his part to that lunch box (let alone to any other lunch boxes)? More generally, how are property rights automatically and necessarily established through superior force?
I think you’re confusing the notion of possession with the notion of property rights (i.e. legitimate possession). Certainly no one will dispute that possession of something can be obtained through superior force. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that possession obtained in such a way is automatically legitimate and that subsequently a property right is established in the thing possessed.
If you want to claim that you consider anything established and defended by superior force to be legitimate, then fine. You’ll essentially be taking the “might makes right” position. Of course, no one else has to agree with it.