Myrkul Sells AnCap...

[Dalkore]

Chosen to ignore me, Dalkore?

Such a shame, so soon after calling me a "worthy opponent"

I would do no such thing.  I didn't see anything that required a response.   You just made a statement.

I asked a question.

I own myself (body, mind and spirit) and I understand that I am not the only claimant on my output that is codified in our taxation system, in America. 

Then you accept that someone has greater claim than yourself over your body. Who?

I reject the premise that you believe you are the SOLE claimant to your output in the country you reside in.  Also having a claimant, you shouldn't automatically assume that claim is higher than mine, it is in addition.  

I don't know, I am not sure you are up to task for this.  I can feel preaching about "how can you allow an other claims on your labor" to come on this thread.  I think I have got this system in check and I don't know if you can maneuver it out of it.

You only real argument is that somehow you claim you have not obligations to anyone except yourself.   That is a tough position to defend when we use reason and logic.  I know you will defend it but you will be wrong unless you have something better to add than "self-ownership" and Youtube video about someones views on Liberty.  

[myrkul]

I own myself (body, mind and spirit) and I understand that I am not the only claimant on my output that is codified in our taxation system, in America. 

Then you accept that someone has greater claim than yourself over your body. Who?

I reject the premise that you believe you are the SOLE claimant to your output in the country you reside in.  Also having a claimant, you shouldn't automatically assume that claim is higher than mine, it is in addition. 

If they can legitimately force you to give it up involuntarily, then their claim is higher to it than yours.

So, I ask again, Who has a higher clam than you to you?

[Rassah]

You only real argument is that somehow you claim you have not obligations to anyone except yourself.   That is a tough position to defend when we use reason and logic.  I know you will defend it but you will be wrong unless you have something better to add than "self-ownership" and Youtube video about someones views on Liberty.  

And I'll also ask, again, if you do indeed have obligations to others, which I agree is a reasonable statement, how much is that obligation/debt/claim worth, and what does it cost to pay it off?

[Dalkore]

Dalkore, just caught up reading the rest of your arguments. The gist of your claim is that, since you were born in this society that provided you, you now "owe" that society for the things it provided. Fair enough. So, tell me, how much is that debt, exactly, and how can one pay it off? I'm not even suggesting "i paid of my debt, so now I can ignore rules and laws when I'm visiting others or am on public property." Rules that others establish for their own property I'm fine with. I mean, how much do I have to pay to buy back the claims that the state has laid on me and my own property, so that I can be free  to have my own rules on the land I own, and pay taxes only for services  I want?

Now we are getting somewhere, thank you Rassah.


1.  How much is that debt, exactly, and how can one pay it off? I'm not even suggesting "i paid of my debt, so now I can ignore rules and laws when I'm visiting others or am on public property."

Response:  Well even if you did pay the off, you couldn't ignore laws but I do think some of our problems people should be able to opt-out to take those claims on you as an American citizen to a minimum.

2.  Rules that others establish for their own property I'm fine with. I mean, how much do I have to pay to buy back the claims that the state has laid on me and my own property, so that I can be free  to have my own rules on the land I own, and pay taxes only for services  I want?

Response:  Well I believe there are a few service we are all responsible as terms of being a citizen.  But most should be able to be removed.  Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

[myrkul]

Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

Well, yes, we are making a little progress. You feel that land is something you should be able to own without any other claim on it. But there's a bit of a disconnect. How? How does one establish such a claim on land?

[Dalkore]

I own myself (body, mind and spirit) and I understand that I am not the only claimant on my output that is codified in our taxation system, in America. 

Then you accept that someone has greater claim than yourself over your body. Who?

I reject the premise that you believe you are the SOLE claimant to your output in the country you reside in.  Also having a claimant, you shouldn't automatically assume that claim is higher than mine, it is in addition. 

If they can legitimately force you to give it up involuntarily, then their claim is higher to it than yours.

So, I ask again, Who has a higher clam than you to you?

Against, none of us was born into a world without existing laws, rules and claims.  You may think you can talk away those claims and come up with fantasy lands but in the end, you do owe something to the forefathers, your parents, our society and to future generations.   I reject the notion you put forth based.  The world is more complex and has been around much longer than you and I.   You may think it is just that simple as asserting your statement, but in reality it is not.

P.S.  I got called away for work, didn't mean for such a long delay.

[Dalkore]

Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

Well, yes, we are making a little progress. You feel that land is something you should be able to own without any other claim on it. But there's a bit of a disconnect. How? How does one establish such a claim on land?

The purchase price for land should be all in and you pay for the maintenance of your utilities and access which would be handled by the local utilities. 

Like I said, we need major reforms and I can point out countless areas, inconsistencies and conflicts.   What you are advocating to getting rid of the government entirely and I disagree, AnCap would be worse for more people overall even with out current reckless system.

[myrkul]

Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

Well, yes, we are making a little progress. You feel that land is something you should be able to own without any other claim on it. But there's a bit of a disconnect. How? How does one establish such a claim on land?

The purchase price for land should be all in and you pay for the maintenance of your utilities and access

With what?
And how did the original owner get the claim on the land?

[Dalkore]

Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

Well, yes, we are making a little progress. You feel that land is something you should be able to own without any other claim on it. But there's a bit of a disconnect. How? How does one establish such a claim on land?

The purchase price for land should be all in and you pay for the maintenance of your utilities and access

With what?
And how did the original owner get the claim on the land?

Usually payment is in some form of value like money.

I guess we would need to research a specific claim to give you that information.

[myrkul]

Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

Well, yes, we are making a little progress. You feel that land is something you should be able to own without any other claim on it. But there's a bit of a disconnect. How? How does one establish such a claim on land?

The purchase price for land should be all in and you pay for the maintenance of your utilities and access

With what?
And how did the original owner get the claim on the land?

Usually payment is in some form of value like money.

Which you got, how?

I guess we would need to research a specific claim to give you that information.

I don't want a specific case. I want general terms. How does a property owner legitimately establish an original claim on a natural resource such as land?

[Dalkore]

I guess we would need to research a specific claim to give you that information.

I don't want a specific case. I want general terms. How does a property owner legitimately establish an original claim on a natural resource such as land?

Yeah, yeah... I think I can answer that one: via "homesteading" and all that. However, your appeal to 'legitimacy' seems hypocritical. Surely legitimacy is a community value, not an individualist value? By claiming that some methods (of e.g.: applying the label of "private property" to hitherto unspoiled lands) possess legitimacy, it sounds like you're rationalising your greed/territorial instincts. As an individualist, you don't really believe in legitimacy, since that is an appeal to an external authority such as a community with majority rule.

I knew I found the weakness earlier in this AnCap and this line of reasoning.  The burden of proof is on AnCap and not the other way around.   

They can't even understand that you are born "into" a world with set laws and customs that operated before they got their life/liberty. 

[MoonShadow]

I guess we would need to research a specific claim to give you that information.

I don't want a specific case. I want general terms. How does a property owner legitimately establish an original claim on a natural resource such as land?

Yeah, yeah... I think I can answer that one: via "homesteading" and all that. However, your appeal to 'legitimacy' seems hypocritical. Surely legitimacy is a community value, not an individualist value? By claiming that some methods (of e.g.: applying the label of "private property" to hitherto unspoiled lands) possess legitimacy, it sounds like you're rationalising your greed/territorial instincts. As an individualist, you don't really believe in legitimacy, since that is an appeal to an external authority such as a community with majority rule.

I knew I found the weakness earlier in this AnCap and this line of reasoning.  The burden of proof is on AnCap and not the other way around.   

They can't even understand that you are born "into" a world with set laws and customs that operated before they got their life/liberty. 

I'm not even an anarchist, but this line of reasoning is faulty on your part.  The early American colonists established ownership via homesteadong. The marked off a plot of and that no one seemed to have yet, and began to work it.  There was even a term for it at the time, 'corn rights'.  Only later did a state arise and recognize those existing claims.  A community is required, but a community does not a government make.  An ancap society is as likely to be communal as any other.

[myrkul]

The burden of proof is on AnCap and not the other way around.   

Wrong. You made an assertion that one can own property without self-ownership. We are determining how, and the burden of proof lies upon you.

[Dalkore]

I guess we would need to research a specific claim to give you that information.

I don't want a specific case. I want general terms. How does a property owner legitimately establish an original claim on a natural resource such as land?

Yeah, yeah... I think I can answer that one: via "homesteading" and all that. However, your appeal to 'legitimacy' seems hypocritical. Surely legitimacy is a community value, not an individualist value? By claiming that some methods (of e.g.: applying the label of "private property" to hitherto unspoiled lands) possess legitimacy, it sounds like you're rationalising your greed/territorial instincts. As an individualist, you don't really believe in legitimacy, since that is an appeal to an external authority such as a community with majority rule.

I knew I found the weakness earlier in this AnCap and this line of reasoning.  The burden of proof is on AnCap and not the other way around.   

They can't even understand that you are born "into" a world with set laws and customs that operated before they got their life/liberty. 

I'm not even an anarchist, but this line of reasoning is faulty on your part.  The early American colonists established ownership via homesteadong. The marked off a plot of and that no one seemed to have yet, and began to work it.  There was even a term for it at the time, 'corn rights'.  Only later did a state arise and recognize those existing claims.  A community is required, but a community does not a government make.  An ancap society is as likely to be communal as any other.

Regardless if you have state governments or republic representation, it is still and government and they historically have required taxes for certain basic services.  Up to this point, AnCap advocates can not handle having a "required" tax.  That has been the real hangup.  They somehow think this come into this world with no required claims to them.   Honestly I think that notion is ridiculous.   Look, I want to pay a small a tax that is reasonable but the thought of none at all is just odd and I am quite sure I would see a decline of service.

Homesteading is over with, all land has claim so it is pointless to talk about that in current days.   If we are going to discuss proposals, they should have a realistic path to be implemented.   AnCap has not such path at this time other than a violent revolution,  we would be against a large portion of their core beliefs. 

[Dalkore]

The burden of proof is on AnCap and not the other way around.   

Wrong. You made an assertion that one can own property without self-ownership. We are determining how, and the burden of proof lies upon you.

I never made that exact distinction.  Wrong, those are your words.

[myrkul]

The burden of proof is on AnCap and not the other way around.   

Wrong. You made an assertion that one can own property without self-ownership. We are determining how, and the burden of proof lies upon you.

I never made that exact distinction.  Wrong, those are your words.

That is my interpretation of your words:

I reject the notion you put forth based. [I assume on self-ownership?]

Property taxes are one I don't like.  You should be able to own land.

I am not the only claimant on my output

If you are not the sole claimant, you do not own yourself. At best, you share ownership. If I am wrong, explain your position, so that I may better understand.

Also: you're wrong again:

AnCap has not such path at this time other than a violent revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

[firefop]

When it comes right down to it - the entire concept of ownership depends on force (and thus aggression) to define it.

Stake out a claim, defend it from all comers until everyone decides that it belongs to you --- aka the cost of invading you is considered too high because you keep winning. Historically this is how wars get started. Family vs Family - Tribe vs Tribe - State vs State.

I think the very idea of ownership goes against the NAP. One more reason that ancap would never survive for long.

[Rassah]

When it comes right down to it - the entire concept of ownership depends on force (and thus aggression) to define it.

Stake out a claim, defend it from all comers until everyone decides that it belongs to you --- aka the cost of invading you is considered too high because you keep winning. Historically this is how wars get started. Family vs Family - Tribe vs Tribe - State vs State.

I think the very idea of ownership goes against the NAP. One more reason that ancap would never survive for long.

It could also depend on verbal agreements. You keep this land, because you know how to use it best, I'll keep this land because I know how to use it best, and we'll both agree to be good neighbors, just because life will be easier for both of us.

Seriously, it's like you think the only thing stopping people from turning into marauding bands of murderous thieves is laws on some books. People can be decent and courteous human beings just because. This whole thing reminds me of how perplexed and stupified some christians are when you try to explain to them that atheists can still be moral even without some book telling them what to do.

[myrkul]

I think the very idea of ownership goes against the NAP. One more reason that ancap would never survive for long.

So you do not own your body?

[Rassah]

The very idea of 'property' is made-up. It gets reinvented every time someone thinks of it for the first time. It's neither right nor wrong, it's just popular. And it's no more fundamental than that other word that you so despise: community. Yet you choose to worship one and reject the other.

I think you have greatly misunderstood AnCap. Property and community are the most fundamental parts of nature. When a wolf catches a rabbit, that rabbit is now the wolf's property. When that wolf chooses to take that rabbit back to his pack, he is sharing it with his community. AnCap can't deny property or community any more than nature can.

When you respect other people in accordance with your An-Cap rulebook, there seems to be no way to distinguish between "other individuals" and "atomic members of some community", and thus you are forced to respect both.

Why is this an issue with AnCap? An AnCap society will likely have very many communities. They'll just be voluntary.

Regardless if you have state governments or republic representation, it is still and government and they historically have required taxes for certain basic services.  Up to this point, AnCap advocates can not handle having a "required" tax.  That has been the real hangup.  They somehow think this come into this world with no required claims to them.   Honestly I think that notion is ridiculous.   Look, I want to pay a small a tax that is reasonable but the thought of none at all is just odd and I am quite sure I would see a decline of service.

As I said, I'm agreeing with you that we come into this world with some claims on us. We have a debt to society by the virtue of us being safely born in that society which provided for us. But how much is that debt actually worth? $100,000? $1,000,000? If it is a debt, there should be some determined amount that we can pay off. If it is just some nebulous, infinite debt, then that's no longer a debt or a claim. It's indentured servitude for the entirety of one's life. Even indentured servants had a specific amount they owed which they could pay off and be free. And regarding taxes, why should they be required? What is it that we MUST be forced to buy and pay for? Why can't someone simply choose not to use any government services or protections, and not have to pay for anything? (Of if they have a debt to society, why can't they pay it off?)

Homesteading is over with, all land has claim so it is pointless to talk about that in current days.   If we are going to discuss proposals, they should have a realistic path to be implemented.   AnCap has not such path at this time other than a violent revolution,  we would be against a large portion of their core beliefs.  

Not all land has been claimed. Not all seas have been claimed (look up seasteading). And weak governments fall apart all the time, opening up access to previously public or contested lands. The most realistic path, though, is also the most probable and inevitable: technology is making governments get weaker and slowly lose power to collect taxes and enforce regulations (Bitcoin is an obvious example), and globalization is eroding arbitrarily established national borders, with their own dispersed and wildly irregular legal structures, and is replacing them with economic zones and privately agreed-on global laws. This has been happening for over a decade already, so the discussion about AnCap is really more about how to speed it up and be ready for it - i.e. what will the world be like, hypothetically - rather than just wishing about fantasies.