Defend Taxation

[myrkul]

I agree with Locke, that work entitles one to ownership.  I don't really have a good reason for that belief though.  I can't seem to convince myself how it was "not" a violence for the first man to "claim" property.

Well, simple:
The other people had not worked on that land, and you had. Work entitles you to ownership, and since they had not worked on the land, they had no claim on it.

Well that works I suppose .  So now the question is did the "government" put "work" in and justly acquire their "land" and therefore have the right to levy taxes?   

Well, did they? did they "mix their labor with the land", and then enter a rental agreement with a tenant?

I'd say probably no on the first part, and definitely no on the second part. Looks like you're stuck where FirstAscent self-destructed... the rental agreement.

[Bjork]

I agree with Locke, that work entitles one to ownership.  I don't really have a good reason for that belief though.  I can't seem to convince myself how it was "not" a violence for the first man to "claim" property.

Well, simple:
The other people had not worked on that land, and you had. Work entitles you to ownership, and since they had not worked on the land, they had no claim on it.

Well that works I suppose .  So now the question is did the "government" put "work" in and justly acquire their "land" and therefore have the right to levy taxes?    

Well, did they? did they "mix their labor with the land", and then enter a rental agreement with a tenant?

I'd say probably no on the first part, and definitely no on the second part. Looks like you're stuck where FirstAscent self-destructed... the rental agreement.

Granted, the only way to come to this conclusion is to accept the premise "labor entitles own to ownership" as truth.  If one sticks to the Rousseau argument then property itself is not-just (either that, or violence is just ?)...

edit: I'm off to sleep.

[myrkul]

Granted, the only way to come to this conclusion is to accept the premise "labor entitles own to ownership" as truth.  If one sticks to the Rousseau argument then property itself is not-just (either that, or violence is just ?)...

Well, let's stick with "Labor entitles one to ownership", since denying property is just itself destroys any argument for taxation.

Where did government "mix it's labor with the land"? Who actually did that, since "government" isn't a person? And, most importantly, where did I sign an agreement to the effect that my residing here was subject to paying taxes?

Even assuming all of that, What kind of "Landlord" locks up tenants who don't pay? What kind of "landlord" brutalizes tenants who don't pay? What kind of "landlord" kills tenants who don't pay?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Now, you said that this was not a fair argument because countries don't really "own" their land because they claimed it through violence etc, but I disagree.  How else does one claim/own land (if not through violence)?  

By acquiring it voluntarily or by homesteading an unowned resource. There's no violence in either case.

This goes back to John locke and Rousseau's ideas about property, but it is not possible for anyone to own anything without committing a "violence" against others.  If one wishes to claim land/property he is necessarily impeding on the rights of others by saying that they cannot enter/use this property now, he is committing a "violence" against them.

This is false. Nobody's right is being violated there, if you're claiming unowned resources by mixing your labor to it. If nobody owned that resource, how could someone have their rights violated? Who was there before?
The homesteading principle minimizes conflicts. Any other alternative will either (1) increase conflicts, (2) end-up with a "cast society", where some have more rights than others or (3) follow the "universal communism" path, that I comment below.

Imagine a "state of nature" where everybody owned/shared everything (no property).

That's unfeasible. An ethical code that follows the "everybody owns everything equally" path would necessarily destroy mankind if followed rigorously. You wouldn't be allowed to do anything without consent from everybody else. You couldn't even use your own body (which wouldn't be yours btw, but equally shared by everybody else) without consent from others. But how would they even give their consent if they can't legitimately use their own bodies without consent from everybody?

You're asking good questions and you seem to have a much higher than average understanding. If you haven't already, I suggest you read Hoppe's texts on the ethics of private property. He can clearly explain what I'm writing here in much better words. A reading suggestion: https://mises.org/daily/1646/The-Ethics-and-Economics-of-Private-Property

The first man to "claim land" is directly impeding on the rights of others by taking their property/preventing them from "using" the land that they were once able to use.

You're wrongly assuming everybody else had a claim to the resource in question. There's no reason to assume that. You have no right to be able to use every resource available.

2. property, and thus taxation, is "just"

Property is just. But taxation, as done by practically every state in this world, is not. They'd have to be legitimate owners of the land they claim, what they obviously aren't.

[FirstAscent]

I edited my argument for further clarification

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

How else would it be? Think in particular of the ocean, and especially how fluid it is, both in terms of its water, and in terms of the life within it, and migratory needs of the life. The landscape is no different, especially since I've gone over ecosystem services with you.

[Explodicle]

Allow me to give this a shot. I reject the is=ought argument that since bad states are widespread they are morally justified. IMHO my perspective is similar to Bjork's.

However, I don't buy into this "mixing labor with land makes the land mine". If you initiate force against me that's aggression, even if you think I'm trespassing. For all the talk of a voluntary society, I DON'T volunteer for this system of landed property, I don't consent to you (or your ancestors) claiming it. Landowners only pay a fraction of what their land is worth, and the ONLY way that private land ownership can be morally justified is if owners reimburse everyone who has been deprived of its use at 100% of its value.

That being said, we don't need a state to solve this problem: geoanarchism would be tolerable too, and I think geoist communities would outcompete "strong land rights" market anarchist groups. It might just be called "rent" and not "tax" but would amount to the same thing. That's why I don't mind even helping the AnCaps win; I think they're just wrong about one economic concept in a way that would solve itself in a free society.

But until that day, I've got no objections to land/pollution/extraction/spectrum/etc taxes.

[FirstAscent]

Why is AnCap anything but a bunch of micro states, each with their own model of taxes and fees? And why is that better, for fuck's sake?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Why is AnCap anything but a bunch of micro states, each with their own model of taxes and fees? And why is that better, for fuck's sake?

1. That's not what AnCap is.
2. A "city-state world" would be much, much better than the current world, nevertheless. And that's simply due to competition. If it's easy to emigrate, you can "vote with your feet". Emigrating is quite tough when you have to cut your roots and links. But when it's just moving to another city 100km away, you're not cutting any serious root, you won't face language/cultural barriers etc. In a city-state world, "bad states" would easily lose their subjects to the neighboring, "less-bad states". Such competition would push good policies and kill bad policies. Think of state subjects as "costumers of governance", which in this scenario can change their "governance providers" much easier. In our current world, changing your "governance provider" is something extremely expensive (difficult) in many ways, and "startup governments" are a practical impossibility. We are hostages of inefficient monopolies.
3. Now change "moving away to a neighboring state" for "resigning your current contract and signing a new one" and you have perhaps a summary of what's actually a decentralized law system (AnCap)
 
EDIT: On the subject of competitive governance, I'd recommend this nice talk by Patri Friedman. There's also this blog.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

However, I don't buy into this "mixing labor with land makes the land mine".

Then read Hoppe's text. The one I linked to Bjork above is a good start.
There's really no acceptable alternative to the homesteading principle.

But, even if you don't yet accept homesteading, the question of why, for instance, the Brazilian government claim to the Amazon is valid and mine (or anybody else's claim) isn't stays open.
Plus the fact that all modern states used war to establish their territories. Justifying taxation by saying that states are legitimate owners of lands they took by force is justifying theft by theft.

[FirstAscent]

Why is AnCap anything but a bunch of micro states, each with their own model of taxes and fees? And why is that better, for fuck's sake?

1. That's not what AnCap is.
2. A "city-state world" would be much, much better than the current world, nevertheless. And that's simply due to competition. If it's easy to emigrate, you can "vote with your feet". Emigrating is quite tough when you have to cut your roots and links. But when it's just moving to another city 100km away, you're not cutting any serious root, you won't face language/cultural barriers etc. In a city-state world, "bad states" would easily lose their subjects to the neighboring, "less-bad states". Such competition would push good policies and kill bad policies. Think of state subjects as "costumers of governance", which in this scenario can change their "governance providers" much easier. In our current world, changing your "governance provider" is something extremely expensive (difficult) in many ways, and "startup governments" are a practical impossibility. We are hostages of inefficient monopolies.
3. Now change "moving away to a neighboring state" for "resigning your current contract and signing a new one" and you have perhaps a summary of what's actually a decentralized law system (AnCap)

You're funny. Why do you make the following assumptions:

1. Moving to another city-state would be easier than moving to another country (aside from language)?

2. City-states wouldn't merge for security and/or economies of scale?

3. Free trade between city-states would magically be optimal the way you see it?

4. Trade and travel across city-states would not be fraught with transit fees, tariffs, taxes, tolls and so on?

[nimda]

Hey, we didn't use war to get Alaska

[Explodicle]

However, I don't buy into this "mixing labor with land makes the land mine".

Then read Hoppe's text. The one I linked to Bjork above is a good start.
There's really no acceptable alternative to the homesteading principle.

But, even if you don't yet accept homesteading, the question of why, for instance, the Brazilian government claim to the Amazon is valid and mine (or anybody else's claim) isn't stays open.
Plus the fact that all modern states used war to establish their territories. Justifying taxation by saying that states are legitimate owners of lands they took by force is justifying theft by theft.

I'm not arguing that states have any more right to claim land than you do. The entire earth belongs to the people of earth and states are not legitimate "owners". My claim is that the state can be a useful tool to reimburse the public for such widespread (and arguably practical) aggression. Democratic control over land isn't theft because privatizing it in the FIRST place was the theft.

I'm curious, do the AnCaps here think that after the revolution is over, the masses will be content to watch us enjoy our Bitcoin mansions tax-free? You're going to have to pay them some kind of protection money or provide a public good, or someone working for your private security will get rich off your assassination market.

[FirstAscent]

Consider the following story with two characters: Mike and Hawk.

Hawk owns an island in the south Pacific. It is his own private domain. He's the ultimate NAPster, free from any government. He recently met Mike, an aspiring NAPster. He invites Mike to come visit his island.

The two fellows sit on Hawk's veranda, sipping drinks and admiring the expanse of Hawk's beautiful island. A conversation ensues.

Hawk: "Why don't you stay here? I'll sell you a ten acre parcel on the south side of the island."

Mike: "Oh, I'd love that. I can live the NAP dream here."

Hawk: "Yes. There are some terms you must agree with though, as this is my island. Remember, I'm a NAPster true and true, and since this is my island, I make the rules."

Mike: "Uh, what are those?"

Hawk: "Well, when you buy that parcel of land from me, I'll grant you ownership rights, but they won't be like the ownership rights I have."

Mike: "Uhhh..."

Hawk: "When you buy the parcel, you'll have the right to sell it to someone else down the road. However, you'll have to pay me an annual fee while you own it based on my assessment of the land's value. Furthermore, any business you conduct on your property will be subject to various taxes and such."

Mike: "Hey, that doesn't sound right."

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

[TheButterZone]

Mike Hawk hurts!

[myrkul]

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

Mike: "Then keep it. I'm going someplace I can actually own land. Enjoy your Island."

[FirstAscent]

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

Mike: "Then keep it. I'm going someplace I can actually own land. Enjoy your Island."

And so you decide to go where? America? Australia? China? Syria?

[myrkul]

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

Mike: "Then keep it. I'm going someplace I can actually own land. Enjoy your Island."

And so you decide to go where? America? Australia? China? Syria?

No, another island. You still haven't successfully defended Taxation.

What's your excuse this time?

[nimda]

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

Mike: "Then keep it. I'm going someplace I can actually own land. Enjoy your Island."

And so you decide to go where? America? Australia? China? Syria?

No, another island. You still haven't successfully defended Taxation.

What's your excuse this time?

Wait hold on a second. Don't dodge the question. Where does Mike go?

[myrkul]

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

Mike: "Then keep it. I'm going someplace I can actually own land. Enjoy your Island."

And so you decide to go where? America? Australia? China? Syria?

No, another island. You still haven't successfully defended Taxation.

What's your excuse this time?

Wait hold on a second. Don't dodge the question. Where does Mike go?

Another Island in the south pacific, presumably magicked up from the same place the first one was.

Still waiting for someone to justify someone putting a gun in my face and saying "you owe me for being born here."

[Explodicle]

Still waiting for someone to justify someone putting a gun in my face and saying "you owe me for being born here."

No one is suggesting that.