I made no such agreement. Nor would it be legitimate as it was made under duress. Just like if someone buys a store in an area that's under control of the mafia they did not agree to pay the mob protection.

I think the best description of the state I have heard is "The state is the mafia posing as a human rights organization." -Dave Smith.

You made that clear already. But the current partisanship we're experiencing is not about how much someone supports 'their side' but how much they hate the 'other side'. Perhaps it should be called anti-partisanship?

Plus, I was just making a joke. Your grammar is top notch after all


The overall point is that taxes pay for what the population constantly, unavoidably and necessarily benefit from, not merely to enrich their lives but merely to survive, and that not paying taxes is in fact a form of theft (aka free rider). But you don't need to respond to me specifically, I'll expect your thoughts on it to come out as you respond to OrP etc, since that was your original discussion and I don't want to sidetrack away from that.

But life isn't a prisoners dilemma. Nor is it rational to act aggressively in a society, with or without the state.

No, they own none of those things. Fruit from the poisonous tree. The obtained these things by illegitimate means.

It was purchased from someone who didn't own the land. So the whole thing is null and void.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Property ownership is wholly separate from the state.

Sure, and there's plenty written on this. It would be unlikely that this contract would be upheld. But I would rather people have the right to sell themselves into servitude than be a slave to the state. It seems odd that this is what you are concerned with?

First, it wasn't made under duress. No one forced you to purchase the land. If you did so it was freely chosen (presumably).

Second, yes, you did make such an agreement. Maybe you were lying and had no intention to honor the contract you signed when you purchased the land, but that doesn't mean that you didn't agree to honor the state's rights when you signed.

Finally, if you purchase a store that is partially owned by the mafia, and they include as a rider to the purchase that you must pay them a certain fee every year for perpetuity, then yeah, you still have to honor that rider if you care about property rights. The property rights they had in that store initially is what allows that rider to carry through to you past the purchase.

Yes, I put very little effort into grammar. I don't really see the point.

If it's true that one benefits from society, it's not because of government. An argument could be made that if one owes anyone, it would be those that provided the most amount of value and wealth to the society. So Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc. But I don't owe them anything as their payment is when someone engages in voluntary transactions. There is just no logic in their argument.

Yes it is?

I don't really think that fruit of the poisoned tree principles applies to property rights (eg adverse possession is an example where it doesn't). I acknowledge that like everyone else I don't have a great story about original ownership.

You are just denying the plain reality of the situation. William Penn came to America and claimed a bunch of land (some of it purchased from American Indians, some of it previously unclaimed). Then he sold that land to other people, but with the proviso that that he was only selling some of his property rights in that land (i.e. he was reserving a right to charge a fee and various other rights). Then that land was sold to someone else, and someone else, until it ends up in Sally's hands today. At each purchase, the government's property rights are acknowledged as still binding. So at what point do the property rights that William Penn reserved for the government of the colony magically disappear? And why?

Not odd at all. I think slavery is a great moral evil and so view political ideologies that allow it as deficient.

I have travel and work stuff for the next few days, so I might be slow in responding.

Of course it was. There is virtually no habitable land left not under the control of the state. So in order to live I must purchase the land.

I know of no such contract. But again, it was under duress so it doesn't matter.

No one said they partially owned anything. That's not how the mafia worked. The just declared an area their territory and charged protection money. At best they put a gun to someone's head and made them "sell" part of their company.

No worries. Thanks for the conversation thus far.

Nah, you can rent easily enough, purchasing land is not necessary to live. Anyway, just because people don't want to sell allodial property rights doesn't mean that your purchase is under duress. There is no moral law that says they have to sell to you on your preferred terms. If they prefer to sell a more limited set of property rights, but still sufficient for your survival, then your duress argument fails.



Do you have a land title? Look at it, and see if it says fee simple.



Right, I'm not describing the Mafia, but the government. That is how the government works.

Ok, instead of me just disagreeing, care to elaborate?

[quote]I don't really think that fruit of the poisoned tree principles applies to property rights (eg adverse possession is an example where it doesn't). I acknowledge that like everyone else I don't have a great story about original ownership.

I wasn't talking legally. I just used that to get a point across.

We are in the situation that we are in. We cannot undo history. So as far as who owns what, the question would then be who has the most just claim? The answer would never be the state so I'm not concerned.

What makes it a moral evil?

What if the prisoners are given the option where everyone benefits with no downside? This is life.

Absolutely not. It's simple, they stole the money, so nothing they spent that money on is theirs.

That addressed nothing about what you quoted.

Do you understand the point of the prisoner's dilemma?



Theft is unlawful taking. They didn't break any laws, so no theft.

Fortunately, in a stateless society there would be no theft. There would just be regular old taking.

Who said I was trying to address the prisoners dilemma?

So what would you call what I am describing? Describing theft only in terms of legality seems silly. Do you really believe the only thing wrong with theft is that it's illegal?

Some people don't use ground pork when they make meatloaf. This is important.

You didn't bother to describe whatever it was that you were falsely equating with theft, so I cannot answer your question.

I think our two definitions are actually equivalent, and I've highlighted the portions which I think make them equivalent. When you include the clause that theft involves taking something that one does not own then you are introducing a condition that's equivalent to mine. The concept of "ownership" is itself an example of a socially constructed set of norms and institutions, i.e. as enshrined in the legal system in our society. Whether someone owns something is not strictly a moral question. So, I would call "taking something that one does not own from someone that does not consent" theft, but nevertheless taxation is not theft because our socially constructed norms of ownership do not apply in such a way as to make taxation theft.

Sure. And to be clear I'm not arguing that morality should be taken to reduce to legality. I think there can be immoral laws, as well as acts which are immoral but legal.

But social norms do in some large part reflect the moral values of the societies which enact them, and questions about which acts constitute rape are mediated by social norms in the same way that questions about which acts constitute theft are. Just as an example, there were states in which one could not be charged with the rape of a spouse until the early 90s, and the lack of laws against marital rape tells you something about the moral views of many/most Americans at some point in the past.

I expect that the other reason you are making the comparison between sexual assault and theft is you believe that consent is central to the moral question in both cases. I agree with this, and like most people I treat consent as even more central with regard to sexual assault than I do with theft. But, also like most people, I recognize various nuances involving consent in relation to sex. For example, I hold that children cannot properly consent to sex, and that very inebriated people can't do so either. In the same way that my view of theft involves both the concept of consent but also a socially mediated understanding of ownership, so my view of sexual assault involves both the concept of consent but also a socially mediated understanding of competence (or maturity).

I think you provided an example in this exchange:

At least as I'm reading your response, the emphasis is on the word "I", relating to your principles around volunteerism. You did not consent to the social contract which governs the relationship between private contracts and the state, so it's not valid to you.

But, it's inevitable that every human being will be born into a world in which various social institutions and structures already exist, negotiated and renegotiated by their predecessors. Not only that, but the enculturation and socialization processes by which established values and norms are passed on from generation to generation are a fundamental feature of human cultures. That is, it is through socialization that we come to accept those previously negotiated institutions as legitimate, which allows them to survive and grow. The development of complex societies depends explicitly on this ability to communicate social arrangements and cause them to be accepted to new members of the society.

So, it seems impossible to me that any complex social organization among humans could survive if it were to be considered immoral to impose any such prior arrangements on individuals. It's not even as if you could recreate a new social contract with each generation, because people are born and die continuously. Because of this, I think your voluntary society has broken down already when you insist on the individual's absolute right to reject the existing social contract on the grounds that they did not personally consent to it.

Ok, so you seem to not be following the conversation.

quoted from first result on google
This doesn't reflect life. First, you can communicate in the free market. You know, or learn, what the other party is doing and can respond accordingly. Second, taking an action that makes someone worse off in the market is never an optimal long term strategy.

I literally defined it above in post 42.

It reflects a concept. Actually a set of economic logic concepts, and (when used in experiments) a set of concepts that describe humans.

Also, you are wrong about the "second" part. I can he better off by making you worse off. That is, as an example, how poker works.



I would call taxation "taxation."

In case it isn't clear, I would call theft "theft."

They get two different words because they are two completely different things.

The concept of ownership is not a socially constructed norm. Although it could be included in them. I was not clear though, I take self ownership as an axiom. It is true that some, most throughout history, do not abide by that axiom. That's how we got slavery.

So our definitions are not the same. Yours include a subjective view of ownership and property, mine does not.

I think when you drill down your belief, along with OP's, gets pretty tricky. If it's true that it's not theft because I don't own my house, then it's also true that it's not theft when the State takes the product of my labor. Which means the State owns my labor. Pretty dangerous precedent.

So theft isn't immoral?

And I would have still considered that rape. While I agree that very often the social morals may be reflected in the law, that doesn't mean that in anyway the legality effects what is moral. Now you may believe in subjective morality. I don't. So we may be at an impasse.

I think we are just at a point we cannot move forward. I don't believe social norms has anything to do with morality. Something is either moral or immoral. The amount of people that believe one way or another is irrelevant to me. Sure, there are many nuances in morality and gray areas, but it is not contingent on the amount of people that agree.

We we can continue to discuss is whether a society is better of taking my position or yours on morality.

Poker is a game. For one to win the other has to lose. That's not how the market works. That's actually the opposite. For one to win the other has to win as well.


I was referring to my definition of theft. You disagreed with my definition of theft, so that's what I was responding to. If theft is not defined the way I laid out, then what would you call the "thing" I defined as theft?

This is a great thread.

Glad it wasn't moved to the toxic waste dump that is the Politics Forum. (With all due respect to WN, who does a great job as moderator.)

Edit: Even (especially?) Toxic waste dumps need a competent overseer.

I prefer to call it a "containment forum"

Kind of like the dome surrounding a nuclear power plant?

The bolded above is is one of those claims without showing empirical evidence or a logical argument to back it up. Try to make your case that it is true rather than just making a naked claim.



You asked me to scroll up to a post and I complied. It looked like what you were describing is what I and most people would call "taxation."

If you mistyped which post number you were referring to, let me know.