Therajraj: How Do You Anti Government

[EyeDentist]

@therajraj

All your arguments lead down the path that no one owns anything and therefore there are no countries and everything is one world collective

That comment is as inaccurate as it is silly.

[DoubleDuce]

You are disavowing property rights. The first and primary property right is self ownership. They are intrinsically entangled.

[therajraj]

@EyeDentist

Warning: To many, this is going to seem weird and deep (but not necessarily in a good way). If that sort of thing doesn’t appeal to you, save yourself some time and eye-rolling, and skip over it.

The taxation is theft argument rests upon several assumptions that have gone unexamined. The first, and most important, is the assumption that the money in your pocket is yours and yours alone–that you have absolute ownership of it. This is a central tenet of libertarianism–that there exists an absolute right (usually called a ‘natural right’ to make it seem more legitimate) to one’s own property. Additionally, there is the assumption that taxation is an artificial, non-absolute construct that gets forcibly imposed upon ‘your’ money.

By these lights, taxing an individual is theft. The problem is, these assumptions do not withstand scrutiny. First, the notion of an absolute right to property is deeply suspect. Consider what we might call the origination problem. Most (all?) of us enjoy the ‘rights’ to property that was obtained via violence way back in the day–the land upon which we live was stolen by our ancestors; our forbears benefited from slave labor; etc. Given this, by what right can we now claim legitimate (which is surely a prerequisite for absolute) ownership?

Now, the libertarian can side-step this by saying he surely has absolute ownership of the product of his labor; ie, his income. Except that, of course, none of us labor in a vacuum–that is, all of us work in a system completely and hopelessly polluted with materials that were either ill-gotten themselves, or (much more likely) purchased with funds that originated in an illegitimate manner. So we’re right back to the origination problem.

In point of fact, wealth (money) is a social construct that derives its meaning and value from the interactions of individuals in society. Rather than being absolute, ownership is a conditional state that emerges from the socioeconomic relationships we enjoy with others and their property. Put another way, ownership is not a relationship just between you and your stuff; it’s a relationship among you, your stuff and the rest of us. Further, we have all agreed–both tacitly and explicitly–to a set of criteria that facilitate the mutually-desired goal of respecting the conditional relationship each of us has with our respective stuff.

At long last, the point. Inherent to this conditional relationship–ie, one of the criteria I referred to above–is a process called taxation. Taxation is not (as the libertarians would have us believe) an artifice imposed upon the absolute relationship between an individual and ‘his’ wealth; rather, taxation is just another intrinsic element of the relationship that exists among all members of society, and the property temporarily in their custody.

Anyway, for those who think that’s a bunch of pretentious hooey, I hear ya. I just thought it might enliven the conversation a little.

Read this post you wrote. It has arguments that can be used against the idea of countries.

If all or most land was stolen at some point, how can any people have a right to any land? Or products of the labor built upon the land?

[EyeDentist]

@verne

Money is a representation of the life, we willingly sell, in order to trade for the things we need or desire.

Money is much more than that. It came into being as a function of both the labor of those who came before us, as well as resources taken from the commons. It does not spring de novo from one’s labor.

[EyeDentist]

@DoubleDuce

You are disavowing property rights.

With respect to property rights, I am disavowing that you have an absolute claim to your pre-tax earnings; ie, that it is solely ‘your’ property. I am not disavowing the existence of a very strong claim to property rights adhering to post-tax income.

As an aside, the notion of absolute property rights is deeply problematic as well.

@DoubleDuce

The first and primary property right is self ownership. They are intrinsically entangled.

This is an assertion of belief–an assumption. It is not in any sense a logical ‘given.’

[thunderbolt23]

@DoubleDuce

This is expressly not a parallel.

Of course it is. Your house is private property and you are authorizing someone to do something to it. It’s a perfect parallel.

Honestly, you haven’t thought this through.

[EyeDentist]

@therajraj

If all or most land was stolen at some point, how can any people have a right to any land? Or products of the labor built upon the land?

The point is, they cannot make a libertarian-style absolute claim to property rights. But this does not preclude the development of socioeconomic agreements which acknowledge conditional property-rights claims.

Think of it this way. Suppose you lived back in the frontier days, and wandering west one day, came across a valley that suited your fancy. To make things simple, let’s assume no one lives there. By what mechanism would you have had the right to say “this land is mine–I now own it”? From whence does this right originate?

[therajraj]

@EyeDentist

@therajraj

If all or most land was stolen at some point, how can any people have a right to any land? Or products of the labor built upon the land?

The point is, they cannot make a libertarian-style absolute claim to property rights. But this does not preclude the development of socioeconomic agreements which acknowledge conditional property-rights claims.

Think of it this way. Suppose you lived back in the frontier days, and wandering west one day, came across a valley that suited your fancy. To make things simple, let’s assume no one lives there. By what mechanism would you have had the right to say “this land is mine–I now own it”? From whence does this right originate?

I understand your point but while supporting your argument here it also invalidates the idea of a country

[DoubleDuce]

It is far more logical than to distinguish between self ownership and ownership of the output of one’s self. And to claim that a person own ones but not the other.

[DoubleDuce]

It isn’t a parallel because you going and explicitly and expressly agreeing with your neighbor to do something is very different from supposed implicit consent under duress. Again, me not moving my house as evidence of my consent without a direct verbal or written agreement is a parallel.

[EyeDentist]

@therajraj

I understand your point but while supporting your argument here it also invalidates the idea of a country

Not at all. ‘Country’ is yet another social construct, and one with great utilitarian value. While my argument pulls the rug out from under the claim that ‘country’ represents some sort of indisputable fact of nature, is doesn’t de-legitimize the construct.

[EyeDentist]

@DoubleDuce

It is far more logical than to distinguish between self ownership and ownership of the output of one’s self. And to claim that a person own ones but not the other.

I don’t see anything ‘logical’ about your claims. They are simply bald assertions that you (presumably) want to be true. From a meta-discussion standpoint, you are asserting your conclusions.

[therajraj]

@EyeDentist

@therajraj

I understand your point but while supporting your argument here it also invalidates the idea of a country

Not at all. ‘Country’ is yet another social construct, and one with great utilitarian value. While my argument pulls the rug out from under the claim that ‘country’ represents some sort of indisputable fact of nature, is doesn’t de-legitimize the construct.

How do Americans have a right to borders if their land was stolen at some point?

[EyeDentist]

@therajraj

How do Americans have a right to borders if their land was stolen at some point?

Because we have all agreed that the social construct that is ‘America’ is valid and useful.

Let me flip the script on you. Your concern seems to be ‘if we can’t make an absolute claim to property, then it follows that America is an invalid construct, or at least one that can be legitimately challenged.’ Let us assume this is true. How would that ‘fact’ provide a logical justification for the concept of absolute property rights? In other words, to argue “Property rights have to be absolute, because I don’t like the repercussions if they aren’t” hardly qualifies as a rational argument in favor of absolute property rights. (Ironically, far from being a rights-based argument, you would be making a utilitarian one.)

[therajraj]

@EyeDentist

@therajraj

How do Americans have a right to borders if their land was stolen at some point?

Because we have all agreed that the social construct that is ‘America’ is valid and useful.

Let me flip the script on you. Your concern seems to be ‘if we can’t make an absolute claim to property, then it follows that America is an invalid construct, or at least one that can be legitimately challenged.’ Let us assume this is true. How would that ‘fact’ provide a logical justification for the concept of absolute property rights? In other words, to argue ‘Property rights have to be absolute, because I don’t like the repercussions if they aen’t’ is hardly a rational argument in favor of absolute property rights.

Back up for a second.

Not everyone has agreed America as a social construct is useful.

I’m sure there are poor people living in other countries that do not agree with the concept of America being useful.

In fact there are people here who believe ‘no one is illegal’ and admission they do not accept the validity of borders

[EyeDentist]

@therajraj

Not everyone has agreed America as a social construct is useful.

That’s OK. Unanimity is not a requirement.

@therajraj

In fact there are people here who believe ‘no one is illegal’ and admission they do not accept the validity of borders

Indeed. And ironically, those people are often libertarians or anarcho-capitalists.

[SkyzykS]

@NickViar

Natural rights cannot be contracted away. This is even confirmed, ironically, by the SCOTUS. I cannot sign to give you permission to kill me for example.

…and that is one of the truly crazy things about our government(don’t know how others view assisted suicide)…it(yes, I know IT is actually the majority-basically-of the citizenry) asserts a claim to even your life.

You can end your own life. You just can’t hire someone to do it.

Unwritten, but actually happens- End of life for terminally ill patients is often due to the combination of meds, but goes down in practice and on the certificate as being from the disease.

[thunderbolt23]

@DoubleDuce

It isn’t a parallel because you going and explicitly and expressly agreeing with your neighbor to do something is very different from supposed implicit consent under duress.

Nonsense. You’re giving authorization both ways, and whether it is direct or indirect is immaterial. What matters is authorization is given through delegation, and consent has been provided. And participating in a representative democracy isn’t operating “under duress”. Good Lord.

You simply can’t up with a credible reason your theory “no consent on taxation!” doesn’t disintegrate under ordinary scrutiny. You tried saying “well, taxation is different,” but it’s not. Now you’re trying to redefine basic principal-agent relationships to not include logic.

Taxation ain’t theft. Utter nonsense.

[toddrc]

Monty Python - What have the romans ever done for us

[NickViar]

@SkyzykS

You can end your own life. You just can’t hire someone to do it.

Unwritten, but actually happens- End of life for terminally ill patients is often due to the combination of meds, but goes down in practice and on the certificate as being from the disease.

I believe you actually are permitted to do so in certain states, under certain conditions. Regardless, it is ridiculous that a government has any say whatsoever in determining how you end your life(I’m going to count assisted suicide as “you” here because, in the context of this thread, it’s certainly close enough-at least you’re directly authorizing a person of your choosing to do a single thing, and not being forced by a majority to go along with its decision).