- Taxes are not theft

[Spideynw]

@alimentarius

I’m still unable to see why property rights are real, and not simply social constructs like any other law…

All property is claimed. The question is, who has the best claim. Why is the governments claim better than mine?

[wilderness]

@alimentarius

That’s instinct. But how can I prove it?

prove that you and another person are real? what are you asking?

[alimentarius]

I’m not able to see property rights. Rights are social constructs, aren’t they?

[wilderness]

@alimentarius

I’m not able to see property rights. Rights are social constructs, aren’t they?

curious. do you understand what “thine and mine” is?

Edit: I’m not asking for you to explain it or anything, unless you want to somehow. I’m merely asking yes or no - or I don’t know is fine too.

[alimentarius]

I don’t know if I understand it, but of course i have an instinct telling me what belongs to whom. However, I also have an instinct telling me to steal food I’m about to die.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@alimentarius

Living in your country is voluntary, therefore taxes are not theft. As long as you’re living on the property of the state

You’ve begged the question that the state actually owns anything and is in any way legitimate.

[wilderness]

@alimentarius

I don’t know if I understand it, but of course i have an instinct telling me what belongs to whom. However, I also have an instinct telling me to steal food I’m about to die.

Did you really therefore not understand your instinct, since you “don’t know if (you) understand it”? So if you don’t understand it, then what or who really told you to steal food? And yet how did you understand if it’s your instinct, since "(you) don’t know if (you) understand what “mine and thine” is, so, you can’t say if it’s your instinct. And how could you steal food if it’s not “mine or thine” to be stolen from? Does stealing imply it was taken from another person or did you take it from yourself?

[Jon_Irenicus]

It ain’t property of the state. It was fabricated via stolen funds. Ergo, I reject the argument as gibberish, as moonshine. Not very interesting, not original, not successful.

[Wolves_of_Paris]

By definition a state is not voluntary. I did not sign the constitution, did you?

[nandnor]

@alimentarius

I’m not able to see property rights. Rights are social constructs, aren’t they?

Rothbard uses the Golden Rule to justify them as absolute natural rules:

Mises Institute

If anything useful could be found in Rawls in particular and contemporary political philosophy in general, it was only the continued recognition of the age-old universalization principle contained in the so-called Golden Rule as well as in the Kantian Categorical Imperative: that all rules aspiring to the rank of just rules must be general rules, applicable and valid for everyone without exception.

Rothbard sought and found support for his contention regarding the possibility of a rational ethic and the reintegration of ethics and economics based on the notion of private property in the works of the late Scholastics and, in their footsteps, such “modern” natural-rights theorists as Grotius, Pufendorf, and Locke. Building upon their work, in The Ethics of Liberty Rothbard gives the following answer to the question of what I am justified doing here and now: every person owns his own physical body as well as all nature-given goods which he puts to use with the help of his body before anyone else does; this ownership implies his right to employ these resources as one sees fit so long as one does not thereby change the physical integrity of another’s property or delimit another’s control over it without his consent. In particular, once a good has been first appropriated or homesteaded by “mixing one’s labor” with it (Locke’s phase), then ownership of it can only be acquired by means of a voluntary (contractual) transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner. These rights are absolute. Any infringement on them is subject to lawful prosecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of strict liability and the proportionality of punishment.

Taking his cues from the very same sources, Rothbard then offered this ultimate proof for these rules as just rules: if a person A were not the owner of his physical body and all goods originally appropriated, produced or voluntarily acquired by him, there would only exist two alternatives. Either another person, B, must then be regarded as the owner of A and the goods appropriated, produced, or contractually acquired by A, or both parties, A and B, must be regarded as equal co-owners of both bodies and goods.

In the first case, A would be B’s slave and subject to exploitation. B would own A and the goods originally appropriated, produced, or acquired by A, but A would not own B and the goods homesteaded, produced, or acquired by B. With this rule, two distinct classes of people would be created—exploiters (B) and exploited (A)—to whom different “law” would apply. Hence, this rule fails the “universalization test” and is from the outset disqualified as even a potential human ethic, for in order to be able to claim a rule to be a “law” (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally—equally—valid for everyone.

In the second case of universal co-ownership, the requirement of equal rights for everyone is obviously fulfilled. Yet this alternative suffers from another fatal flaw, for each activity of a person requires the employment of scarce goods (at least his body and its standing room). Yet if all goods were the collective property of everyone, then no one, at any time and in any place, could ever do anything with anything unless he had every other co-owner’s prior permission to do what he wanted to do. And how can one give such a permission if one is not even the sole owner of one’s very own body (and vocal chords)? If one were to follow the rule of total collective ownership, mankind would die out instantly. Whatever this is, it is not a human ethic.

Thus, one is left with the initial principles of self-ownership and original appropriation, homesteading. They pass the universalization test—they hold for everyone equally—and they can at the same time assure the survival of mankind. They and only they are therefore non-hypothetically or absolutely true ethical rules and human rights.

[xahrx]

@wilderness

Did you really therefore not understand your instinct, since you “don’t know if (you) understand it”? So if you don’t understand it, then what or who really told you to steal food? And yet how did you understand if it’s your instinct, since "(you) don’t know if (you) understand what “mine and thine” is, so, you can’t say if it’s your instinct. And how could you steal food if it’s not “mine or thine” to be stolen from? Does stealing imply it was taken from another person or did you take it from yourself?

Not his point. If his instinct is enough justification for property rights, it is also enough of a justification of when to ignore them should his survival depend on it. And there is no particular reason why the law should delineate and respect property rights and not delineate and respect when their breach is proper. Instinct tells us all what is mine and thine. It also compels us to not give a damn what’s mine and thine in certain circumstances. And if instinct alone is what we’re going on, then stealing is justifiable in some circumstances.

[wilderness]

@xahrx

Not his point. If his instinct is enough justification for property rights, it is also enough of a justification of when to ignore them should his survival depend on it. And there is no particular reason why the law should delineate and respect property rights and not delineate and respect when their breach is proper. Instinct tells us all what is mine and thine. It also compels us to not give a damn what’s mine and thine in certain circumstances. And if instinct alone is what we’re going on, then stealing is justifiable in some circumstances.

It is THE point. I asked him what “mine and thine” is (I linked it for you in case you missed it). He said he didn’t know if he understood, but when on to talk about his instinct and stealing. It doesn’t matter at this point if a little birdy told him [:P] what “mine and thine” is or space aliens [:P]. And I’m not interested in his ruse to justify stealing. I said he didn’t have to explain what it is (unless he wanted to). I asked him if he understood “mine and thine” - yes, no, or idk.

[Laughing_Man]

@xahrx

And if instinct alone is what we’re going on, then stealing is justifiable in some circumstances.

That is nonsense. Such circumstances can be arbitrarily claimed. Under no pretense is it justifiable to aggress against another in an attempt to gain their rightful property.

[nhaag]

@Spideynw

And slaves did not have to keep living, they had the choice to kill themselves. Therefore, choosing to live was voluntary. As long as they chose to live, they needed to abide by their master’s rules and follow the contract to enjoy whatever freedoms they had. Otherwise they were a parasite. If they preferred to not be slaves, they were free to kill themselves.

Excellent argument. Case closed :-))

[wilderness]

yeah that is an excellent argument, though personally I read it as being sarcastic - a good enlightened sarcasm! There’s truth in there. This one by Spideynw was good too in this thread.

[krazy_kaju]

The state is not the legitimate owner of the property that you live on. Thus, it has no right to extract rent from you. Rothbard went over this in the Ethics of Liberty.

[Spideynw]

@krazy kaju

The state is not the legitimate owner of the property that you live on. Thus, it has no right to extract rent from you. Rothbard went over this in the Ethics of Liberty.

The government does not claim to just be the owner of the property you live on. It claims to be the owner of your very person! The U.S. government did not even outlaw slavery. It reserved slavery to itself!!!

[alimentarius]

Some people say we will have war lords if we abolish the state. Is this true?

[wilderness]

lol

[Mlee]

Much like asking “Will we have warlords if we abolish warlords.”

What is the difference between a pirate and an emperor?