Theft & Taxes

[nanciqwerty]

Slight correction to video.

The government (the business entity created by some townspeople) did NOT pass a law. The created a STATUTE, which is a contract, given the force of law by the consent of the parties. ANY private contract is enforceable by courts as if it were law, otherwise contracts could not work.

The catch here is that statutes can ONLY apply to members of the business that created them.

If a 2nd group formed a 2nd government, on the same day, are you subject to them too?

[nanciqwerty]

The comments here are amazing. So many people cannot grasp that if they don't have the right to steal, they cannot give that right to a bunch of people running a business calling itself 'government'.

It cannot be a moral idea if you can only introduce the theft once you have build up a force of enough paid thugs to prevent all the face-punching you would otherwise receive.

Try imposing the idea on a desert island community of 100 people. Better be ready to duck those punches.

[Anekantavad]

Objections:

- Fred's horses are only "his" in the sense that everyone else agrees they are. That's what property is. Legitimacy only exists in the collective sense, and without legitimacy we're in a state of Hobbesian anarchy.

- Fred's legitimacy is guaranteed by the community. If there are 100 people without horses, and Fred has 2, and everyone is okay with that, they are keeping their end of the social contract. Fred has to keep his end. What end is that? Whatever he and society agree it is.

[tommo1313]

If you get by well on the society you are raised in you do owe a service to that society. And for ethical reasons the poor can't afford the same taxes as the rich.

[storyhack]

@tommo1313 I agree that those who are successful do have a moral responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. I simply believe that no one has the right to take away another's possessions without the owner's consent.

[Anekantavad]

@storyhack "I simply believe that no one has the right to take away another's possessions without the owner's consent."

But how do someone's possessions become their possessions? I don't mean "how does someone create wealth". I mean, how is something identified as someone's possession at all? Is there something inherent in the thing itself that gives it a "mine-ness" or a "yours-ness"?

Nope.

Possessions only exist as possessions because we all agree they are.

[xtremejohnny69]

Well we do need some taxes in any nation to pay for defense, police protection, roads things like that. But taxing the shit outta the rich isn't the way to do it. Now the fairtax...thats the way to do it!

[storyhack]

Torbellicus- You say that there are no natural rights. You only have what rights a government gives you.

So in other words, no government has ever trampled on anybody's rights, because whatever a government does (democratically elected or not) to a people defines their rights.

[storyhack]

By that logic nobody ever trampled the rights of black slaves. Nobody ever removed the rights of Native Americans by slaughtering them. Stalin never touched the rights of his people when he used government control to starve them.

[storyhack]

And don't throw "democracy" into the mix - your argument is that there is no inherent right or wrong (morality) and that people have no inherent rights.

You've used "democracy" to sidestep the issue - do people have rights whether a government recognizes them or not?

[Anekantavad]

@storyhack Who says anyone has any rights at all?

The usual response to this is to cry "heretic", but I'd like to hear someone tell me how rights exist independent of collective human consciousness.

They don't.

Rights are concepts, and like all concepts, they only exist in the human mind. IOW, rights only exist because we say they do, and in they only exist in the form that is generally agreed upon.

Good or bad, that's just how concepts work.

[Anekantavad]

@storyhack "You say that there are no natural rights. You only have what rights a government gives you."

Who says we even have the rights that the government gives us? Who says that the government has the authority to bestow any rights? For the matter of that, who says that the government even exists?

The entire idea of "government" assumes legitimacy, and legitimacy only exists in the collective sense. If people don't believe the government is legitimate, it isn't the government anymore.

[Torbellicus]

The moral of the story is:

1. Property rights regime tramples democracy and the rule of law.

2. The status quo must be protected. Period. Any aid or welfare depend on the whim voluntarism.

[storyhack]

Historically speaking, every society that abolished property rights has ended one of two ways:

1.Complete anarchy

2.Tyrannical despotism

In all cases, the vast majority of the people lived in abject poverty. Are you suggesting that would be better?

[Torbellicus]

No society has abolished property rights, ever. They may have enforced different conceptions of property rights, like different feudal arrangements. In the USSR, property was owned by and managed through a secretive state that was owned and controlled by a narrow group of people. This is what is called state-property usually.

Of course. I do not allege that getting rid of property would be a good thing. I am simply questing the infantile anti-tax dogma as presented in the video.

[storyhack]

Perhaps I should have said "personal property rights."

I think that soviet Russia definitely counts as tyrannical.

[Bellator656]

Consider: Fred owns two horses, while Pete has none. Pete is not happy with the unfair arrangement, where he is forced to go hungry while Fred can enjoy the output of two horses. One day, Pete goes and takes one of the horses. Fred objects, saying that he has claimed both as his property. Pete however says that he never signed any contract where he officially recognizes Fred's exclusive right to both horses. Therefore, when Fred restricts Pete, he is resorting to coercion.

[storyhack]

By that same logic, I have never signed a contract stating that you own anything, so I should be allowed to go into your apartment and take your iPhone and your frilly underthings.

[Torbellicus]

Exactly. But that's only right if you presume that taxes are coercive or theft: if that is the case, then the enforcement of property rights must also be morally wrong since they enforce restrictions on people through force without their consent. But of course, this line of reasoning is dumb. Just as the idea that taxes are theft is incredibly stupid. In reality, taxes, like property, are complex social and political systems established through the rule of law, which is created by a government.

[Bellator656]

Laws and morality are separate concepts. Morality is basically a fancy word for 'opinion'. Many people can have different conceptions of morality, some of which might be contradictory with the moral views of others. There is no natural and inalienable code of rights and proper conduct that is universal. In a democracy, laws, including taxes and property rights, are determined by the population through a political process. Laws concerning property and taxes are both equally valid.

[storyhack]

Well, the founding legal document of the United States (Declaration of Independence) disagrees with you. Something about "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and all men being endowed with "unalienable rights".

[Torbellicus]

The Declaration of Independence is not a law of any kind but a piece of propaganda basically. Any document can state the existence of self evident and unalienable rights, but it doesn't mean that they exist Things that dont exist cannot function as guiding principles of any government without inherent contradictions Given that the US government is democratic, and that property is defined and enforced by this government, as are taxes, than laws concerning property and taxes are equally valid.

[Bellator656]

The concept of legal theft is inherently self-contradictory, because law is what DEFINES THEFT. What you forget is that "the towns people and Mr.ice", i.e. the government, define and enforce property in the first place. They are the ones who therefore determine that Fred owns the horse. They can, through democratically implemented law, impose taxes just as they can impose property laws.

In fact. Property laws presume that certain taxes are levied, because all laws need mr.ice to be enforced.

[storyhack]

By your reasoning, any law passed by the government makes it ok. So you must therefore believe that slavery was just and acceptable. Also It was legal for Sadaam Hussein's regime to kidnap and torture anyone they wanted. I can't accept that just because it was legal it was also right.

[Torbellicus]

No. I'm speaking of democratic governments.

Of course, democratic governments are not saints either, they have their problems. But that's usually because of the lack of democracy.

[storyhack]

So what about the democracies that allowed slavery? Slavery was OK there?

[Torbellicus]

No genuine democracy that I know of has allowed slavery. No state has implemented chattel slavery through democratic process in any significant scale.

And I mean chattel slavery and none of the libertarian nonsense about "tax slavery" OMG OBAMAS GONNA RAISE YOUR TAXES BACK TO THE CLINTON LeVElz!!11! grab your guns!

[storyhack]

A strict democracy can easily trample a minority's rights. If you don't assume that there are unalienable "natural" rights, then everything is relative to the law of the land. i.e. If the mob decides that raping your older sister is not a crime, they still have a majority. Does that make it right?

[Torbellicus]

Democracies don't usually trample minorities rights. It's usually a minority regime that exploits the majority. And all rights are political and alterable, even the rights of minorities -- that's a fact and to say anything else is to engage in wishy washy libertarian fantasies.

[storyhack]

Um, the questions of "Is there such a thing as natural law and natural rights?" or "are there only legal rights as defined by a ruling class/government" have been asked by great thinkers for a long time, with guys like Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Hobbs and John Locke lining up on the side of Natural Law & Rights and guys like Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke on the side of legal only.

[Torbellicus]

Yes, and the debate can be ended this way: Natural right do not exist because mother nature doesn't enforce your rights. Divine rights do not exist because god doesn't intervene to enforce such rights. Political rights exist because they are enforced through human institutions and actions. Period. To introduce morality into this is a complete non-sequitur. Morality is nothing but opinion, even if professed by great thinkers.

[storyhack]

The founders of the nation leaned heavy toward the "wishy-washy libertarian fantasies" of natural law.

From a practical standpoint, basing the government with the assumption of natural law worked out very well for the US, and allowed it to be the strongest, most prosperous nation on the planet.

[Torbellicus]

Are you saying that the US in fact was built on a delusion and thrived because of that? Ridiculous.

The US has never actually practiced any of the libertarian natural laws, but always maintained regimes of taxes, land reforms, subsidies, and various regulations.

The US revolution was about taxes and regimes that were imposed on US without representation. After US became independent, the government often imposed equally extensive regimes, but ones that favored the US and not the British.

[Anekantavad]

@storyhack "From a practical standpoint, basing the government with the assumption of natural law worked out very well for the US, and allowed it to be the strongest, most prosperous nation on the planet."

Do you have any evidence that there is a link between the two? Between national wealth and power and natural law? The Chinese may believe otherwise, and they may be in the process of proving it.

I'm not saying I agree with them. Rather I am warning against being to ideological.

[shepardh1]

I don't believe in a moral rsponsibility to other's welfare.. but great point otherwise!

[GoldSilver588]

Very good video. There is absolutely nothing wrong about riches. They've worked harder and saved more. They've earned their money. Tax them more to give the money to people that don't work hard or save isn't fair at all.

[scerorjr]

Way to go thank you!!!!

[g14314PATRIOT]

That should certainly be simple enough for EVERYONE to understand. Why are we having Tea Parties??? Because we want our horses back! Even if we do only get glue back, we can at least have SOMETHING to show for our hard work. GREAT JOB!!!

[darcsfalcon1]

Awesome job on this!