How could it be irrelevant? AC will of course grant that you can't sell what you don't own. When you inherit or buy land you only inherit/purchase fee simple ownership rights in that land. You can't buy allodial rights, because the seller doesn't have them to sell. If you as an anarcho-capitalist mistakenly believe that is what you are buying or already own, then get a better lawyer.

Of course, an anarcho-capitalist can assert as a matter of morality that we would be better off if land ownership was allodial instead. Maybe that is correct (I don't think so). But the argument here is whether taxes - here I'm focusing on property taxes - are a form of theft. If the structure of land ownership agreements include obligations to pay property taxes, then your further permission is not required. In fact, not paying property taxes would be a form of theft, since you are denying the state the money they are due.

I think from the ACist point of view the state (and thus the law) is immoral that's kind of the whole point of saying that taxation is theft. What they mean is that taxation is immoral because its coercive.

I guess all I'm saying is I think that's the real crux of the disagreement. For them it's not an argument about whether property ownership is allodial or fee simple (thanks for these terms, this is new to me ) and I don't think they'd be persuaded by it.

But no one coerced them into buying or inheriting that land. This is like saying that the bank is coercing me into paying them a monthly mortgage in order to own land. No, that was part of the agreement made when the land was purchased. If you don't want to pay the mortgage now, too bad. Same with property taxes.

I think you're hitting (slightly tangentially) on one of my biggest problems with this kind of libertarianism, which is that it's an abstraction that breaks down immediately given generational change, i.e. when interacting with social structures that exist prior to one being able to volunteer to participate.

I might've thought I'd been transported to the comment section of a Fox News YouTube video, if it wasn't for the good grammar and lack of RANDOMLY capitalized WORDS!

I think you could probably respond to your own comment just as well as any interlocutor would, so I won't pursue it. I'm more interested to hear how you respond to the actual topic (which the "you didn't build that" speech is also about).

FWIW, I didn't think it sounded nice at all (OK, maybe the delivery sounded reasoned), just standard statist anti-free market dreck.

Of course we live in an interconnected society, that's not the point. The counterpoint is simple: independent players in free exchange and competition create more overall value through multiple actors acting in their own self-interest than top-down government management can ever achieve.

Maybe this thread should be moved to the Politics Forum?

I would be fine with that but I don't think it's mandatory to move it. I leave that choice to jibs/OrP. They might prefer it here.

Either way is kewl.

This is a terrible argument, and does not show that taxation is not theft.

the state has set things up in such a way that you have an obligation to pay taxes to the state?

Just cos some guy in a silly hat says "well, its fee simple, so you have to pay" does not make it not theft.

there is a large difference between paying off an agreed sum of money to take possession of something, and paying an agreed sum of money for something, and then having to pay more money each year for ever more in order to keep owning it, to someone that doesnt own it in the first place, but who pretend they do own it, and claims they still own it even after you bought it from them.

And even if it does somehow justify it for owning land( it doesnt), other types of taxes certainly are theft.

I would argue that nobody should OWN land at all. The "owner" of the land didn't create it, and the person s/he purchased it from didn't either. In a sense, EVERYBODY should own the land, just like everybody owns the air and water and oil, etc.

In my opinion, all land should be leased out by the government, with the proceeds going to find the government and/or a "Citizens Dividend", such as Alaska has for oil revenues. This is known as a Geo Tax.

Theoretically, the federal government could be fully funded without an income tax.

User fees, tariffs, geo-taxes, and excise-taxes could generate enough money to fund the federal government.

Of course, a lot of government downsizing would be required, but the upside is workers could spend the money they earn as they see fit, instead of one-third of it going to Washington.

When Ron Paul was running for president in 2012, he asserted that even If the federal income tax was repealed, the government would still have enough revenue to fund the government at year 2000 level.

(I'm done posting until after midnight EDT.)

It does if the guy in the silly hat is the one who originally sold or gave property rights over it to you (or to the person from whom you bought it). If they only sold limited ownership rights in the land, then it is dishonest to claim absolute ownership rights over that land. Furthermore, when you signed the document taking ownership, you agreed to only take fee simple ownership in the land, not allodial ownership. If I rent you a property, you have some rights as a tenant, and I have some rights as a landlord. If you decide as a tenant that you don't want to pay rent, well, that isn't really your decision to make.

It's true that a bunch of modern-day looters pretend that the historic agreements around the sale of land limiting ownership rights to fee simple rather than allodial either didn't happen or no longer apply and so they can ignore the state's property rights. However, if you believe in property rights, then you should reject that view.

Nah, our property rights in money are also limited.

No.

Hinting that there is a list isn't cool.

Agreed.

Fair enough, I did assume that. You and I have a different set of morals then.

It is rational without the state. Even more so. With the state you are incentivized to use aggression.

This presupposes that the state has ownership to begin with. Which it does not. The State has not rightful ownership of anything. Therefore the claim illegitimate.

What is your reasoning for believing that a group of people get to arbitrarily claim ownership of land? What justifies this?

So you would advocate for following slave laws?

Ok.

I don't understand how your views don't ultimately lead to us being slaves to the state. What differences do you see?

That seems like an odd definition. What would you call it when someone takes something that they do not own from someone that did not consent?

And yes, I am not make a legal argument. Just like I don't think rape is ok if it's legal. Nor do I think that rape is contingent on current norms.

This is not an accurate analogy. The bank owns the money they lend (or the rights to lend it). You enter into this voluntarily. The state does not own the land.

Why would it break down?

You can get out of some prisoner dilemma situations (i.e. situations where individual rationality diverge from collective rationality) if there is an outside force that punishes you if you defect (eg in the original prisoner's dilemma, if both prisoners are members of a gang that punishes defectors, then you can solve for the best outcome). This is one of the roles of the state, to enforce laws which are collectively rational but individually irrational through the use of violence or other punishments. This leads to a better outcome overall.

What a strange idea. The state of New York owns the capital building in Albany. Right? The US government owns some fighter jets (which is why they can sell them to other countries). I mean, this seems very obvious to me so if you disagree you'll have to explain why.

It depends on the specific state. For instance, Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn, who was granted a charter by the King of England to found a colony in America. From there he sold land to other individuals under fee simple rules. Thus, if you own land in Pennsylvania, it originally came from a string of sales going back to William Penn, who only sold fee simple rights in land. This is why today, if you own land in Pennsylvania, the title to the land will still say that you only have fee simple title to the land, not allodial. Thus, when you purchased the land, that is all you purchased.

The pertinent point is that if you think William Penn's right of ownership is illegitimate, then you should also view property ownership in Pennsylvania today as also illegitimate (simplifying here past some complexities).

No

The first principle precludes slavery. FWIW, libertarians and ACists seem much more in danger of allowing slavery to me. After all, if you have absolute ownership of yourself, then presumably you should be able to sell yourself into slavery. After all, absolute property rights typically includes the power to sell.

I am no fan of the right.

If you want to lay out what points in that speech you would like me to address I would be happy to.

Of course I agree with your point. But demagoguery sounds great to a large amount of people. That's why it works. And Obama is one of the best.

I wouldn't say the state "owns" the land. Rather, when you purchased the land, part of your purchase agreement was an acknowledgement that the state has certain rights in that land as well (eg taxation, zoning, etc), which they've never give up. This isn't speculation. It's right there on the land title in black and white. If you didn't want to grant the state those rights, then you shouldn't have signed the purchase agreement. However, if you did sign it, then you are bound to honor your agreement. You can't just decide that you'd prefer to have allodial property rights. If you want absolute ownership of land, go find someone who has allodial land rights and purchase it from them.