Fair Tax and black markets

[Richy_T]

I think the main issue is that the only real reason to own lots and lots of land is to control the people who wish to use it. I don't have solid answers and don't claim to be drawing lines but if you own more than "as far as the eye can see", you possibly have more than you should.

The only entities I know of that own that much land are governments. Possible exception: the Catholic Church (which counts as a government, in my book).

Yes, exactly Though I think there are ranches in Texas and Monsanto is probably in there too. Though Texan ranches are probably (maybe) justifiable.

[1714725679]

1714725679

[Richy_T]

Put simply: they conquered the land.  They proved that they are able to defeat anyone who would challenge their power.  They reached an understanding with the foreign governments of the world that they alone are sovereign within its borders, and it's this understanding and fear of war that keeps their territory safe from those foreign governments.

For definitions of "safe" which may mean "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". What governments are generally protecting is their ability to shake down the people who are living on the land. The allegiance of the people living on the land is often real but arbitrary.

[Richy_T]

Let me see if I get this right:

You think "I own it because I was the first one there, and marked it" (however that marking gets done) is not legitimate, but "I own it because I killed the fuckers who lived there, and anyone else who tried to move in" is?

Legitimate or not, it's the literal truth.

[Topazan]

I know you're going to find this objectionable, and I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you it isn't, so I leave you with this: If and when private security agencies start providing a genuine alternative to governments, I'll rethink my position.

Let me see if I get this right:

You think "I own it because I was the first one there, and marked it" (however that marking gets done) is not legitimate, but "I own it because I killed the fuckers who lived there, and anyone else who tried to move in" is?

That's what it's going to come down to in the end.  Your hypothetical AnCap community can have homesteading, if and only if your security agencies are willing and able to impose it on everyone who has a different idea of land ownership.  Any philosophical justification you can give for taking land is bound to be questioned by people with different values.  Violence is just about the only thing that's beyond question.

We live in a world where the rewards of killing are great, and often the only practical way to stop a killer is to kill them.  I'm not saying the greatest killers SHOULD have the ability to impose their will on other people, I am stating the simple fact that they DO have it.

[Fjordbit]

FairTax is mistaken in the whole "we can tax black markets thing". Compare two societies, one with income tax at 20% and one with sales tax at 20%. You have a person A buying a black market item from person B who then uses the profits to pay rent to a legitimate person C. Person C spends his money on legitimate sources. Person A then uses the rest of their money on legitimate sources.

In the income tax scenario. Person A makes $10,000 and pays $2,000 in taxes. They pay $100 for a black market item to person B. Person B pays no taxes and pays $100 rent to Person C. Person C pays $20 in taxes. Total taxes: $2020.

In the sales tax scenario. Person A makes $10,000. They spend $9900 on legal things and thus pay $1980 in taxes. They spend $100 with person B and pay no taxes. Person B spends $100 on rent to person C and pays $20 in taxes. Person C spends that $100 and pays $20 in taxes. Total taxes: $2020.

The thing is that everyone's spending in is another person's income. It doesn't matter which side you put the taxation on, it is equivalent. So the taxation you gain from black market dealers now buying legitimate items is lost from the income of customers who are buying black market items.

[myrkul]

I know you're going to find this objectionable, and I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you it isn't, so I leave you with this: If and when private security agencies start providing a genuine alternative to governments, I'll rethink my position.

Let me see if I get this right:

You think "I own it because I was the first one there, and marked it" (however that marking gets done) is not legitimate, but "I own it because I killed the fuckers who lived there, and anyone else who tried to move in" is?

That's what it's going to come down to in the end.  Your hypothetical AnCap community can have homesteading, if and only if your security agencies are willing and able to impose it on everyone who has a different idea of land ownership.  Any philosophical justification you can give for taking land is bound to be questioned by people with different values.  Violence is just about the only thing that's beyond question.

We live in a world where the rewards of killing are great, and often the only practical way to stop a killer is to kill them.  I'm not saying the greatest killers SHOULD have the ability to impose their will on other people, I am stating the simple fact that they DO have it.

There is a world of difference, both philosophical and practical, between imposing that definition of ownership on someone and defending that definition of ownership from someone.

Let's posit two groups, one of which recognizes ownership of land, and one which does not. On the one side, we have a group of AnCaps, who recognize sticky ownership of property, and homesteading. On the other, we have a group of anarcho-communists, who do not recognize homesteading as a valid way to own land, or indeed owning land at all. they only recognize use. Let us further assume that the AnCaps have the best weapons and training, and can, if they choose, impose their order on anyone they come up against.

Our first scenario has the communists occupying a plot of land. Amongst themselves, they peaceably share the land, and all use it as needed. The group of AnCaps comes along, sees that they have already occupied and altered the land they are using, and moves along, looking for un-homesteaded land.

Our second scenario has the AnCaps occupying a plot of land. There is one plot which is owned, but kept pristine for reasons left to the owner. The communists come along, and seeing this unused plot of land, decide to set up shop. The owner of that land, assuming he didn't keep it unused for the purpose of dirty commies setting up a campground, will desire them off the land. So, off they go, by force if necessary.

Now, let's posit a third scenario, where a group of geo-libertarians come along and start telling the AnCaps that because they own land, they owe the geo-libertarians a land tax. They would correctly view this as an attempt to steal from them, and defend their property, with force if necessary.

While we're at it, Let's posit that a group of AnCaps come across a group of geo-libertarians who have already set up shop on a piece of land. They have all agreed that in order to fund their community, they should all pay a land tax to whatever agency they have deemed rightful to collect it. Since the situation is voluntary, the AnCaps shrug, and move along, looking for less crazy neighbors.

You don't impose it on anyone who has a different idea of land ownership, only on those who try to impose that different idea of land ownership upon you.

[Topazan]

Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in fully formed philosophically unified tribes isolated from each other, and there was always somewhere else to go when we encountered another tribe with an incompatible philosophy?  I live in a world of high population densities where ideologically, ethnically, and religiously fragmented peoples are forced into close proximity, personally.  There's still wilderness left out there, but not all of it is usable for every purpose.  When we need something, there isn't always somewhere else to get it.

What you've basically done there is restate the homestead/AnCap position.  Not really sure what your point is.  What you've written is what the AnCaps would believe, but the two other groups would be no less sincere in their beliefs, and in their eyes the AnCaps would be the aggressors for trying to drive them away from something that they're entitled to, and may need to live.

I guess you're basically saying that in the cases where the AnCap society is defending themselves from outside invasion, they're in the right?  But it's not that clean cut in the real world.  Ideological conflict can occur within a society, and societies are not homogenous in the first place.

[Explodicle]

Let us consider three more scenarios.

First there are anarcho-communists. They share resources, but do so in an inefficient manner by penalizing constructive activity.

Then there are geoists who share resources efficiently with natural resource taxes.

Finally we have "strong land rights" market anarchists, who privatize everyone else's land. Clearing forests and leaving trash all over the place isn't just tolerated, it's considered "leaving a mark" and grants monopoly ownership.

In the first two scenarios no one is stealing a shared resource for private gain, although the anarcho-communists are still wasting it somewhat. When group #3 leaves their desolate wasteland behind for a new one, everyone else is free to homestead it.

=============

I was actually surprised to hear that market anarchists believe in subjective property rights, considering how much they complain about "invading MY property!" As defined by a loose affiliation of sometimes-contradicting judges, but of course not the ones who actually exist in the real world.

[myrkul]

When we need something, there isn't always somewhere else to get it.

I guess you'll just have to figure out a way to get the person who has it to give it peacefully, then, huh?

I won't be able to convince you. I definitely won't be able to convince Explodicle. It's like Ron White said, You can't fix stupid.

Oh, and Explodicle,

I was actually surprised to hear that market anarchists believe in subjective property rights, considering how much they complain about "invading MY property!" As defined by a loose affiliation of sometimes-contradicting judges, but of course not the ones who actually exist in the real world.

You should probably think about what the concept of "free market" means when applied to the justice and law industries.

[Explodicle]

Why do you want me to think about anything relating to private law if you're certain I can't be convinced?

Thank you for the series of thought-provoking discussions, at least. As obnoxious as I am, it has still been very informative.

[myrkul]

Why do you want me to think about anything relating to private law if you're certain I can't be convinced?

I am an eternal optimist. Perhaps, you will prove me wrong. That would be a refreshing change.

[Topazan]

I guess you'll just have to figure out a way to get the person who has it to give it peacefully, then, huh?

It's going to take more than shoving a few stakes in the ground to convince me that a person "has" a piece of land.  If that person says "If you work here without paying me, I'll kill you." I'll consider it extortion, nothing more.

I do understand your point of view and I think you raised a number of very good points that really made me think.  I think our philosophies are more similar than different.  Echoing Explodicle's sentiment, while you may not have convinced me, it was a good discussion regardless.

One point in particular you raised that was fairly thought-provoking is that I am, in fact, implying that governments/communities should have the power that I say landlords have not earned.  Leaving this power in the hands of landlords is not an acceptable solution to me either, but I do acknowledge the dissonance and will keep my mind open to a solution that solves both problems.

[myrkul]

I guess you'll just have to figure out a way to get the person who has it to give it peacefully, then, huh?

It's going to take more than shoving a few stakes in the ground to convince me that a person "has" a piece of land.  If that person says "If you work here without paying me, I'll kill you." I'll consider it extortion, nothing more.

Well, let's suppose you stake out, in winter, the site of your future home. you leave, intending to build that home after the thaw. It is, after all, difficult to build a foundation in frozen soil. Before you can return, I come in and plow about half of those markers under, and plant a field. Just as the first shoots break the surface, You show up with the construction crew, ready to build your house.

Who is in the right, here? Is the land rightfully my farm, or your house?

[Topazan]

I guess you'll just have to figure out a way to get the person who has it to give it peacefully, then, huh?

It's going to take more than shoving a few stakes in the ground to convince me that a person "has" a piece of land.  If that person says "If you work here without paying me, I'll kill you." I'll consider it extortion, nothing more.

Well, let's suppose you stake out, in winter, the site of your future home. you leave, intending to build that home after the thaw. It is, after all, difficult to build a foundation in frozen soil. Before you can return, I come in and plow about half of those markers under, and plant a field. Just as the first shoots break the surface, You show up with the construction crew, ready to build your house.

Who is in the right, here? Is the land rightfully my farm, or your house?

Um, recall that I'm advancing the geoist perspective.  I'm still developing my ideas, so I'm not quite a fanatical geoist, but that's kind of been my role in the thread so far.

As such, my answer would be, "Whichever one of us has been paying the tax."

[myrkul]

I guess you'll just have to figure out a way to get the person who has it to give it peacefully, then, huh?

It's going to take more than shoving a few stakes in the ground to convince me that a person "has" a piece of land.  If that person says "If you work here without paying me, I'll kill you." I'll consider it extortion, nothing more.

Well, let's suppose you stake out, in winter, the site of your future home. you leave, intending to build that home after the thaw. It is, after all, difficult to build a foundation in frozen soil. Before you can return, I come in and plow about half of those markers under, and plant a field. Just as the first shoots break the surface, You show up with the construction crew, ready to build your house.

Who is in the right, here? Is the land rightfully my farm, or your house?

Um, recall that I'm advancing the geoist perspective.  I'm still developing my ideas, so I'm not quite a fanatical geoist, but that's kind of been my role in the thread so far.

As such, my answer would be, "Whichever one of us has been paying the tax."

What if, through some paperwork snafu, we both had been paying the tax on that particular plot of land?

[Topazan]

Then whoever doesn't get the land sues the registrar for compensation.  If we both want the land more than the money, maybe one of those "arbitrators" can help us work things out.*

By the way, Fjordbit, that was a very good point about fairtax.

EDIT: * And I know that's a cop-out, but it's one that I've heard AnCaps use many, many times.

[firefop]

FairTax is mistaken in the whole "we can tax black markets thing". Compare two societies, one with income tax at 20% and one with sales tax at 20%. You have a person A buying a black market item from person B who then uses the profits to pay rent to a legitimate person C. Person C spends his money on legitimate sources. Person A then uses the rest of their money on legitimate sources.

In the income tax scenario. Person A makes $10,000 and pays $2,000 in taxes. They pay $100 for a black market item to person B. Person B pays no taxes and pays $100 rent to Person C. Person C pays $20 in taxes. Total taxes: $2020.

In the sales tax scenario. Person A makes $10,000. They spend $9900 on legal things and thus pay $1980 in taxes. They spend $100 with person B and pay no taxes. Person B spends $100 on rent to person C and pays $20 in taxes. Person C spends that $100 and pays $20 in taxes. Total taxes: $2020.

The thing is that everyone's spending in is another person's income. It doesn't matter which side you put the taxation on, it is equivalent. So the taxation you gain from black market dealers now buying legitimate items is lost from the income of customers who are buying black market items.

The only thing you forgot to account for is the 'illegal migrant worker' who currently must be earning under the table, since he has no legal social security number that an employer can take income tax toward. In this case you're brining a huge population into the tax base... take it with a grain of salt since most illegals are sending money to some other country.

Which makes me think we need to start championing bitcoin as THE way to pay illegals... and also as the best way for them to ship money back home.

[myrkul]

Then whoever doesn't get the land sues the registrar for compensation.  If we both want the land more than the money, maybe one of those "arbitrators" can help us work things out.*

OK, but how do you decide which one gets the land?

I know which way the arbitrator will decide, and I know why. Can you say the same for your reasoning?

[Topazan]

I would say "Whoever filed the claim first."  I do not believe in homesteading.  To me, the question of who marked the land first or who built on it first is irrelevant to establishing ownership.

If the arbitrator and the community recognizes homestead rights, then their answer might be different from mine.

[myrkul]

I would say "Whoever filed the claim first."  I do not believe in homesteading.  To me, the question of who marked the land first or who built on it first is irrelevant to establishing ownership.

If the arbitrator and the community recognizes homestead rights, then their answer might be different from mine.

What makes you think that land registries would not be used in a libertarian, homesteading supporting society?

If it's simply a matter of who put in an official claim first, a wise man would, along with the stakes, place a land claim with a registry. The stakes are just a visible, on-site border marking. To let people know that this land is already claimed.