What do you believe is moral?

[Anon136]

... the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

now i should add as a caveat that there are MANY cases in practice in the word today where the relationship between a renter and land lord is much more akin to taxation than the idealized, over-simplified, example i provided above.

TL;DR: "Nobody built the land, thus nobody owns it or has the right to charge rent for it.  Tenant farmers owe their landlords nothing but the pointy ends of their pitchforks."
FTFY.

First of all this is a red herring, it in no way disproves or even addresses anything in the comment it is intended to be a reply to.

Second, i totally agree with what you have written here yet you just assume that i dont.

wait the failure isnt even done yet, its worse than that still, it would be bad enough if you just assumed this without any information but i have already given you information that indicates that i would agree with this premise.

This is not just one failure, its not even two failures, what we are dealing with here is three failures layered on top of each other. Its madness.

you arnt talking with me, you are talking at me. i dont have time for that shit.

[crumbs]

... the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

now i should add as a caveat that there are MANY cases in practice in the word today where the relationship between a renter and land lord is much more akin to taxation than the idealized, over-simplified, example i provided above.

TL;DR: "Nobody built the land, thus nobody owns it or has the right to charge rent for it.  Tenant farmers owe their landlords nothing but the pointy ends of their pitchforks."
FTFY.

First of all this is a red herring, it in no way disproves or even addresses anything in the comment it is intended to be a reply to.

Second, i totally agree with what you have written here yet you just assume that i dont.

Wrong.\/\/\/\/

...
If you feel that a landlord leasing his land (his property) to a tenant farmer deserves to be payed just like the landlord who leases you his house (his property) deserves to be paid, your attempt to differentiate rent from taxation ("if you build a house ... you should get to decide who lives in that house.") fails.  If you feel that private property is a form of violence, you may be on the right track, though if that's the case, you should own it.
...

wait the failure isnt even done yet, its worse than that still, it would be bad enough if you just assumed this without any information but i have already given you information that indicates that i would agree with this premise.

This is not just one failure, its not even two failures, what we are dealing with here is three failures layered on top of each other. Its madness.

you arnt talking with me, you are talking at me. i dont have time for that shit.

I'm not worried about your time -- you got it, your reply proves it.  You simply ain't got what you so eloquently called "intellectual honesty" -- you still can't commit yourself to a straight answer.   Red swan.  Black herring.

[Anon136]

... the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

now i should add as a caveat that there are MANY cases in practice in the word today where the relationship between a renter and land lord is much more akin to taxation than the idealized, over-simplified, example i provided above.

TL;DR: "Nobody built the land, thus nobody owns it or has the right to charge rent for it.  Tenant farmers owe their landlords nothing but the pointy ends of their pitchforks."
FTFY.

First of all this is a red herring, it in no way disproves or even addresses anything in the comment it is intended to be a reply to.

Second, i totally agree with what you have written here yet you just assume that i dont.

Wrong.\/\/\/\/

...
If you feel that a landlord leasing his land (his property) to a tenant farmer deserves to be payed just like the landlord who leases you his house (his property) deserves to be paid, your attempt to differentiate rent from taxation ("if you build a house ... you should get to decide who lives in that house.") fails.  If you feel that private property is a form of violence, you may be on the right track, though if that's the case, you should own it.
...

wait the failure isnt even done yet, its worse than that still, it would be bad enough if you just assumed this without any information but i have already given you information that indicates that i would agree with this premise.

This is not just one failure, its not even two failures, what we are dealing with here is three failures layered on top of each other. Its madness.

you arnt talking with me, you are talking at me. i dont have time for that shit.

I'm not worried about your time -- you got it, your reply proves it.  You simply ain't got what you so eloquently called "intellectual honesty" -- you still can't commit yourself to a straight answer.   Red swan.  Black herring.

here we go again, I've repeated it over and over and over how can you still not understand. I DONT SUPPORT THIS CLAIM

"If you feel that a landlord leasing his land (his property) to a tenant farmer deserves to be payed"

 Where did i ever say that this was my position? Why do you keep trying to tell me over and over what my position is when i have told you numerous times that it is not my position. How do you presume to know better than me what my position is? It almost seems like you are failing the touring test.

building a house and charging rent to the people who live inside of it is a totally different thing from a land lord leasing land to a farmer for him to grow food on. why are you trying so hard to merge these largely unrelated concepts into homogeneity? the person who builds the house isnt renting out the land that the house is sitting on, hes renting the house for christ sake!

[polarhei]

Well, you cannot do too far, history teaches us.

[FirstAscent]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

[David Rabahy]

Two hungry animals struggle to the death of one of them over food ... the more fit (maybe) survives to procreate.

Oh, wait, apparently we are assuming we aren't brutish animals anymore.

Human children (and even sometimes the offspring of lessor species) are socialized, usually by their parents, during which they learn many things one of which might be stealing is wrong but it begs the question, "Where did the parents learn this?"

It is a mistake to think taxes are collected involuntarily, i.e. stolen; typically they are given over voluntarily if reluctantly.  Naturally there are potential negative consequences to not paying.

Even the commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not coerce."

If Alice hands a silver coin back over to Bob then that's not stealing, right?  Perhaps Bob will use it and other coins collected to build a road for Alice and others to bring her crops to the village to sell.

Democracy (majority rule) is not necessarily logically flawed even if the majority votes for something immoral in someone's eyes; it might be the best structure discovered/created so far for governance.  If plenty of the majority have been well trained by their parents et al then immoral votes are unlikely.

[Anon136]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction?

[crumbs]

...
If you feel that a landlord leasing his land (his property) to a tenant farmer deserves to be payed just like the landlord who leases you his house (his property) deserves to be paid, your attempt to differentiate rent from taxation ("if you build a house ... you should get to decide who lives in that house.") fails.  If you feel that private property is a form of violence, you may be on the right track, though if that's the case, you should own it.
...

Look up.  To the red, boldface font.  If you feel that a tenant farmer does not owe rent to his landlord, simply answer:

"I do not believe that land is private property, to be bought, sold or leased." (yes/no)
Corollary:  "A tenant farmer owns his landlord nothing -- his landlord can not charge rent for something he has not built & can not own." (yes/no)

Hint: "I do not support this claim" is a weak, evasive answer.  I may not support the claim that "martians are green." My refusal to support doesn't begin clarify my beliefs -- it simply states that i choose to withhold judgement.  It by no means constitutes my belief in the inverse -- that martians are *not* green.  Now answer the question or STFU.

[FirstAscent]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction?

Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint.

Landlord's land = Nation's land
Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure
Landlord's neighbors = Other nations

[Anon136]

...
If you feel that a landlord leasing his land (his property) to a tenant farmer deserves to be payed just like the landlord who leases you his house (his property) deserves to be paid, your attempt to differentiate rent from taxation ("if you build a house ... you should get to decide who lives in that house.") fails.  If you feel that private property is a form of violence, you may be on the right track, though if that's the case, you should own it.
...

Look up.  To the red, boldface font.  If you feel that a tenant farmer does not owe rent to his landlord, simply answer:

"I do not believe that land is private property, to be bought, sold or leased." (yes/no)
Corollary:  "A tenant farmer owns his landlord nothing -- his landlord can not charge rent for something he has not built & can not own." (yes/no)

Hint: "I do not support this claim" is a weak, evasive answer.  I may not support the claim that "martians are green." My refusal to support doesn't begin clarify my beliefs -- it simply states that i choose to withhold judgement.  It by no means constitutes my belief in the inverse -- that martians are *not* green.  Now answer the question or STFU.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yessssss. Oui. Ci. Is that strong enough for you?

Now if we can move past this FINALLY and you are done accusing me of holding positions that i dont hold than im willing to let bygones be bygones. Ok lets FINALLY move on to something productive.

I think a person has a legitimate claim to the things that he builds ontop of land, and so while he doesnt own the land per se, he does own the right to restrict other people from putting their wrecking balls in the place that his house is located with out his permission. You dont need to own the land inorder to stop things like that, just the house. This means that if he allows the property to enter into re enter a state of nature, and it is no longer in a state where his efforts have added a reasonable amount of value above what it would be valued at in a state of nature than he loses his claim and it becomes available for others to plant crops on or build houses on.

You are conflating the idea of private property ownership and land ownership. You are trying to make it seem as if they are the same thing when they are totally different things. you can have a world with private property that doesnt have private land ownership.

if you go out into land that is in a state of nature and you plant a crop, you dont own the land you own the crop. do you understand? You can have it so that if you dont plant a crop there next year it is no longer yours, while still having it so that the person who planted the crop has the right to prevent people from lighting it on fire, and the right to trade the produce with his neighbor.

so incase you didnt figure it out. if the world worked the way i outlined above, farmers would never pay rent to land lords for the land that they farm.

[crumbs]

...
If you feel that a landlord leasing his land (his property) to a tenant farmer deserves to be payed just like the landlord who leases you his house (his property) deserves to be paid, your attempt to differentiate rent from taxation ("if you build a house ... you should get to decide who lives in that house.") fails.  If you feel that private property is a form of violence, you may be on the right track, though if that's the case, you should own it.
...

Look up.  To the red, boldface font.  If you feel that a tenant farmer does not owe rent to his landlord, simply answer:

"I do not believe that land is private property, to be bought, sold or leased." (yes/no)
Corollary:  "A tenant farmer owns his landlord nothing -- his landlord can not charge rent for something he has not built & can not own." (yes/no)

Hint: "I do not support this claim" is a weak, evasive answer.  I may not support the claim that "martians are green." My refusal to support doesn't begin clarify my beliefs -- it simply states that i choose to withhold judgement.  It by no means constitutes my belief in the inverse -- that martians are *not* green.  Now answer the question or STFU.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yessssss. Oui. Ci. Is that strong enough for you.

Now if we can move past this FINALLY and you are done accusing me of holding positions that i dont hold than im willing to let bygones be bygones. Ok lets FINALLY move on to something productive.

I think a person has a legitimate claim to the things that he builds ontop of land, and so while he doesnt own the land per se, he does own the right to restrict other people from putting their wrecking balls in the place that his house is located with out his permission. This means that if he allows the property to enter into re enter a state of nature, and it is no longer in a state where his efforts have added a reasonable amount of value above what it would be valued at in a state of nature than he loses his claim and it becomes available for others to plant crops on or build houses on.

You are conflating the idea of private property ownership and land ownership. You are trying to make it seem as if they are the same thing when they are totally different things. you can have a world with private property that doesnt have private land ownership.

Sure you can.  Just so we won't have to come back to this, can you give me a rough guestimate on just how much work i need to put into something, before i could rightly call it my property?  A house we've agreed on, though i'm still looking at those timbers you've cut down as something i'd like to repurpose.

If i, let's say, put a fence around a piece of land, can i righteously keep you out?  What if i cut the grass inside?  What if i planted that grass?  What if the fence is nothing but string strung from tree to tree?

I'm digging this

if you go out into land that is in a state of nature and you plant a crop, you dont own the land you own the crop. do you understand?

Sure, i'm just wondering, can i keep you from tromping all over my crop?  If i go up in a crop duster loaded with barley seed, and "plant," is the crop mine to tend 'till i reap it? Would i have to reap it the same year?  I'm beginning to see the potential in your gimmick!  

You can have it so that if you dont plant a crop there next year it is no longer yours, while still having it so that the person who planted the crop has the right to prevent people from lighting it on fire, and the right to trade the produce with his neighbor.

Way ahead of you -- see the comments above

Edit:  Ooooh, forgot to ask!  In Anondale, will i be able to keep slaves?  If i grow them from tiny fetuses?  Will there be lawz?

[Anon136]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction?

Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint.

Landlord's land = Nation's land
Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure
Landlord's neighbors = Other nations

I agree that the state has the right to dictate the terms of use of infrastructure that was built using tax dollars. I agree that a landlord who lords over land that he didnt create is basically the same thing as a state. I agree that other nations are basically the same thing as a land lords neighbors.

What did i say specifically that brought you to the conclusion that i do not support one or more of these claims?

[crumbs]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction?

Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint.

Landlord's land = Nation's land
Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure
Landlord's neighbors = Other nations

I agree that the state has the right to dictate the terms of use of infrastructure that was built using tax dollars. I agree that a landlord who lords over land that he didnt create is basically the same thing as a state. I agree that other nations are basically the same thing as a land lords neighbors.

What did i say specifically that brought you to the conclusion that i do not support one or more of these claims?

So, since the world's habitable surface is already covered by states, which already provided infrastructures, no matter how mean & miserable, you agree that there's no room on this green earth for your farmer's paradise?  Or will there be blood in the streets?

[Anon136]

...
If you feel that a landlord leasing his land (his property) to a tenant farmer deserves to be payed just like the landlord who leases you his house (his property) deserves to be paid, your attempt to differentiate rent from taxation ("if you build a house ... you should get to decide who lives in that house.") fails.  If you feel that private property is a form of violence, you may be on the right track, though if that's the case, you should own it.
...

Look up.  To the red, boldface font.  If you feel that a tenant farmer does not owe rent to his landlord, simply answer:

"I do not believe that land is private property, to be bought, sold or leased." (yes/no)
Corollary:  "A tenant farmer owns his landlord nothing -- his landlord can not charge rent for something he has not built & can not own." (yes/no)

Hint: "I do not support this claim" is a weak, evasive answer.  I may not support the claim that "martians are green." My refusal to support doesn't begin clarify my beliefs -- it simply states that i choose to withhold judgement.  It by no means constitutes my belief in the inverse -- that martians are *not* green.  Now answer the question or STFU.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yessssss. Oui. Ci. Is that strong enough for you.

Now if we can move past this FINALLY and you are done accusing me of holding positions that i dont hold than im willing to let bygones be bygones. Ok lets FINALLY move on to something productive.

I think a person has a legitimate claim to the things that he builds ontop of land, and so while he doesnt own the land per se, he does own the right to restrict other people from putting their wrecking balls in the place that his house is located with out his permission. This means that if he allows the property to enter into re enter a state of nature, and it is no longer in a state where his efforts have added a reasonable amount of value above what it would be valued at in a state of nature than he loses his claim and it becomes available for others to plant crops on or build houses on.

You are conflating the idea of private property ownership and land ownership. You are trying to make it seem as if they are the same thing when they are totally different things. you can have a world with private property that doesnt have private land ownership.

Sure you can.  Just so we won't have to come back to this, can you give me a rough guestimate on just how much work i need to put into something, before i could rightly call it my property?  A house we've agreed on, though i'm still looking at those timbers you've cut down as something i'd like to repurpose.

If i, let's say, put a fence around a piece of land, can i righteously keep you out?  What if i cut the grass inside?  What if i planted that grass?  What if the fence is nothing but string strung from tree to tree?

I'm digging this

if you go out into land that is in a state of nature and you plant a crop, you dont own the land you own the crop. do you understand?

Sure, i'm just wondering, can i keep you from tromping all over my crop?  If i go up in a crop duster loaded with barley seed, and "plant," is the crop mine to tend 'till i reap it? Would i have to reap it the same year?  I'm beginning to see the potential in your gimmick!  

You can have it so that if you dont plant a crop there next year it is no longer yours, while still having it so that the person who planted the crop has the right to prevent people from lighting it on fire, and the right to trade the produce with his neighbor.

Way ahead of you -- see the comments above

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

[Anon136]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction?

Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint.

Landlord's land = Nation's land
Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure
Landlord's neighbors = Other nations

I agree that the state has the right to dictate the terms of use of infrastructure that was built using tax dollars. I agree that a landlord who lords over land that he didnt create is basically the same thing as a state. I agree that other nations are basically the same thing as a land lords neighbors.

What did i say specifically that brought you to the conclusion that i do not support one or more of these claims?

So, since the world's habitable surface is already covered by states, which already provided infrastructures, no matter how mean & miserable, you agree that there's no room on this green earth for your farmer's paradise?  Or will there be blood in the streets?

the majority of the planet is still basically wilderness. even if that wasnt the case i would be happy to be allowed to come togather with my friednds to raise the money to purchase the land from the land owner (illegitimate or otherwise) and the state and then opt out of the taxes and the services. as it stands right now they would wako my ass within 10 minutes.

this is all i want. this is all i ask for. i dont want the united states government to desolve. i dont care one iota if other people want to pay taxes and recieve the corresponding services, i just dont want you to force me to. i only want you to allow me and my friends to opt out of the current system and try to build something new for ourselves so long as we arnt hurting anyone.

[FirstAscent]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction?

Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint.

Landlord's land = Nation's land
Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure
Landlord's neighbors = Other nations

I agree that the state has the right to dictate the terms of use of infrastructure that was built using tax dollars. I agree that a landlord who lords over land that he didnt create is basically the same thing as a state. I agree that other nations are basically the same thing as a land lords neighbors.

What did i say specifically that brought you to the conclusion that i do not support one or more of these claims?

So, since the world's habitable surface is already covered by states, which already provided infrastructures, no matter how mean & miserable, you agree that there's no room on this green earth for your farmer's paradise?  Or will there be blood in the streets?

the majority of the planet is still basically wilderness. even if that wasnt the case i would be happy to be allowed to come togather with my friednds to raise the money to purchase the land from the land owner (illegitimate or otherwise) and the state and then opt out of the taxes and the services. as it stands right now they would wako my ass within 10 minutes.

this is all i want. this is all i ask for. i dont want the united states government to desolve. i dont care one iota if other people want to pay taxes and recieve the corresponding services, i just dont want you to force me to. i only want you to allow me and my friends to opt out of the current system and try to build something new for ourselves so long as we arnt hurting anyone.

Sorry to say it, but the year isn't 1500 anymore. I don't really want you buying land out in the wilderness and doing whatever.

Read this post I made earlier: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

[Anon136]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction?

Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint.

Landlord's land = Nation's land
Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure
Landlord's neighbors = Other nations

I agree that the state has the right to dictate the terms of use of infrastructure that was built using tax dollars. I agree that a landlord who lords over land that he didnt create is basically the same thing as a state. I agree that other nations are basically the same thing as a land lords neighbors.

What did i say specifically that brought you to the conclusion that i do not support one or more of these claims?

So, since the world's habitable surface is already covered by states, which already provided infrastructures, no matter how mean & miserable, you agree that there's no room on this green earth for your farmer's paradise?  Or will there be blood in the streets?

the majority of the planet is still basically wilderness. even if that wasnt the case i would be happy to be allowed to come togather with my friednds to raise the money to purchase the land from the land owner (illegitimate or otherwise) and the state and then opt out of the taxes and the services. as it stands right now they would wako my ass within 10 minutes.

this is all i want. this is all i ask for. i dont want the united states government to desolve. i dont care one iota if other people want to pay taxes and recieve the corresponding services, i just dont want you to force me to. i only want you to allow me and my friends to opt out of the current system and try to build something new for ourselves so long as we arnt hurting anyone.

Sorry to say it, but the year isn't 1500 anymore. I don't really want you buying land out in the wilderness and doing whatever.

Read this post I made earlier: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

Do you advocate the use of violence to prevent me and my friends from creating our own new society out in the wilderness somewhere even if we dont harm anyone in the process?

[axus]

Same. I stopped at taxes. And taxes are needed unless we want a complete anarchy.

The question is not whether taxes are needed. It is whether or not stealing is immoral even if called something else.

If you feel that stealing is necessary for society, fine...like Malcolm X saying that the ends justify the means. It is still immoral.

Having a bunch of small, independent communities that are vulnerable to one-man rule and aggression against their neighbors is even less moral, isn't it?  Forced taxation is probably the least immoral way for a nation to cooperate.

[FirstAscent]

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all.

In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction?

Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint.

Landlord's land = Nation's land
Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure
Landlord's neighbors = Other nations

I agree that the state has the right to dictate the terms of use of infrastructure that was built using tax dollars. I agree that a landlord who lords over land that he didnt create is basically the same thing as a state. I agree that other nations are basically the same thing as a land lords neighbors.

What did i say specifically that brought you to the conclusion that i do not support one or more of these claims?

So, since the world's habitable surface is already covered by states, which already provided infrastructures, no matter how mean & miserable, you agree that there's no room on this green earth for your farmer's paradise?  Or will there be blood in the streets?

the majority of the planet is still basically wilderness. even if that wasnt the case i would be happy to be allowed to come togather with my friednds to raise the money to purchase the land from the land owner (illegitimate or otherwise) and the state and then opt out of the taxes and the services. as it stands right now they would wako my ass within 10 minutes.

this is all i want. this is all i ask for. i dont want the united states government to desolve. i dont care one iota if other people want to pay taxes and recieve the corresponding services, i just dont want you to force me to. i only want you to allow me and my friends to opt out of the current system and try to build something new for ourselves so long as we arnt hurting anyone.

Sorry to say it, but the year isn't 1500 anymore. I don't really want you buying land out in the wilderness and doing whatever.

Read this post I made earlier: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

Do you advocate the use of violence to prevent me and my friends from creating our own new society out in the wilderness somewhere even if we dont harm anyone in the process?

You mean out on my land? You want to go squat in national forest, BLM land, national parks, state parks, etc? Go through the proper channels and get your permits, and adhere to the proper regulations for fires, bathroom activities, hunting regulations, bear cannisters, wood cutting, pets, vehicle use, import of foreign species, removal of artifacts, construction, etc.

[crumbs]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details." 
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.