Why I was wrong about the Atheist death count
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
I have travel and work stuff for the next few days, so I might be slow in responding.
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.
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.
No worries. Thanks for the conversation thus far.
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?
[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.
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.
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.
Do you understand the point of the prisoner's dilemma?
Absolutely not. It's simple, they stole the money, so nothing they spent that money on is theirs.
Fortunately, in a stateless society there would be no theft. There would just be regular old taking.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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:
I made no such agreement.
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.
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.
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.
quoted from first result on google
The classic prisoner’s dilemma goes like this: two members of a gang of bank robbers, Dave and Henry, have been arrested and are being interrogated in separate rooms. The authorities have no other witnesses, and can only prove the case against them if they can convince at least one of the robbers to betray his accomplice and testify to the crime. Each bank robber is faced with the choice to cooperate with his accomplice and remain silent or to defect from the gang and testify for the prosecution. If they both co-operate and remain silent, then the authorities will only be able to convict them on a lesser charge of loitering, which will mean one year in jail each (1 year for Dave + 1 year for Henry = 2 years total jail time). If one testifies and the other does not, then the one who testifies will go free and the other will get three years (0 years for the one who defects + 3 for the one convicted = 3 years total). However if both testify against the other, each will get two years in jail for being partly responsible for the robbery (2 years for Dave + 2 years for Henry = 4 years total jail time).
You didn't bother to describe whatever it was that you were falsely equating with theft, so I cannot answer your question.
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.
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.
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 literally defined it above in post 42.
In case it isn't clear, I would call theft "theft."
They get two different words because they are two completely different things.
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.
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.
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).
We we can continue to discuss is whether a society is better of taking my position or yours on morality.
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.
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.
In case it isn't clear, I would call theft "theft."
They get two different words because they are two completely different things.
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.
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?
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?
If you mistyped which post number you were referring to, let me know.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE