WA Delegate: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney (elected 331 days ago)
Founder: The Federated Realms of Distruzio
Embassies: Galts Gulch, Black Mesa Islands, Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region, Libertatem, Anarchist Alliance, Eastern Roman Empire, Antifa, Hellenic Civilization, Snopesean Archipelago, Weed, Democrats, Eutopia, One big Island, the Land of Power, The Allied Republics, The National Alliance, and 70 others.Maltropian Puppet Confederacy, Persian Tricycle Riders, United Dictatorships, Capitalist Paradise, Cashnatchee, World Alliance, The Alliance Pocket Universe, New Republica, New Europe, Polandia, Zarathustra, Federation of Free States, North Africa, International Republican Union, The Commonwealth Of Furry Peoples, The True Rebirth, United Empire of Islam, Glorious Nations of Iwaku, League of Christian Nations, the council of free nations, NationStates Sesquipedalian Countries, Confederation of Nations, Strategos Prime, Atheist Empire, The Darwin Allied Republics, Zentari, The Burning Aisles, League of Cobalt Nations, Arctic, The Western Empire, Gay, The Statue of Liberty, Territory of Imaginary Numbers, Isles of Socialism, The Federal Islands 2nd Gen, The Illuminati, Ivory Tower, Libertarians, The Land of the Most Compitent, Antista, The Hyatt Islands, Land of Absolute Freedom, Northern Emirates, The Seventh Bay, The Versutian Federation, United Nations in Solidarity, Fusionism, Austritaria, Ministreyl Union, Paraguay, International Commonwealth Of Nations, The Liberty Sector, Transhuman Singularity Research Alliance, Oceanside, Brannack, Glenda Dawson HighSchool, Deutschland, Ankh Mauta, Anarcho Pragmatism, Louisiana Alliance x Alliance Louisiane, Liberty Island, The Christian Nations, The Evil Genius Archipelago, New Region, The Intergalactic Corporate Paradise, Germilar, Anarchy, Head Scratchers, The Atlas Union, and European Region.
Construction of embassies with Swingsack has commenced. Completion expected in 1 day 11 hours.
Construction of embassies with League of Nations has commenced. Completion expected in 1 day 23 hours.
Construction of embassies with The Eastern Annexations of Lichtenfels has commenced. Completion expected in 2 days 23 hours.
Tags: Anti-Fascist, National Sovereigntist, Offsite Forums, General Assembly, Anarchist, Industrial, Monarchist, Independent, Featured, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, and 12 others.Regional Government, Democratic, Capitalist, Social, Generalite, Large, Free Trade, Isolationist, Role Player, Anti-Communist, Serious, and World Assembly.
Regional Power: Moderate
Today's World Census Report
The Least Corrupt Governments in Laissez Faireholm
World Census officials visited a range of government departments and recorded how frequently bribes were required to complete simple administrative requests.
As a region, Laissez Faireholm is ranked 9,709th in the world for Least Corrupt Governments.
|31.||The Republic of Pict-land||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Noli me tangere!”|
|32.||The Most Serene Confederation of The Merchant Republics||Corporate Bordello||“Omni Homo Est Suum Regem”|
|33.||The Free Confederacy of Vecherd||Anarchy||“Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis”|
|34.||The Commonwealth of North Western GAJT||Corporate Bordello||“We shall have an association free from class antagonism”|
|35.||The Federation of Asocial partners||Anarchy||“Money should roll”|
|36.||The Confederacy of John Birch Society||Compulsory Consumerist State||“Dont Tread On Me”|
|37.||The New Freedom Loving Land of Nova Freedom Land||Anarchy||“New land of the brave and free!”|
|38.||The 3rd Republic of Evil the Great||Capitalist Paradise||“Honneur et Patrie”|
|39.||The Federal Republic of Cassaria||Anarchy||“It's YOUR life. Live free.”|
|40.||The Protectorate of Frears||Compulsory Consumerist State||“Economics!”|
Regional Poll • Is Chuck Berry a good musician?
Poll called by The Motors of Lincoln Sydney
Voting opened 4 days ago and will close in 9 days. Open to all nations. You cannot vote as you are not logged in.
- 54 minutes ago: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney agreed to construct embassies with The Eastern Annexations of Lichtenfels.
- 4 hours ago: The Rogue Nation of Oscana arrived from The Pacific.
- 9 hours ago: The Federal Republic of Sqornshellous of the region The Eastern Annexations of Lichtenfels proposed constructing embassies.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney agreed to construct embassies with League of Nations.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: Embassy established between Head Scratchers and Laissez Faireholm.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: Embassy established between The Atlas Union and Laissez Faireholm.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: Embassy established between European Region and Laissez Faireholm.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: Embassy established between Laissez Faireholm and Anarchy.
- 1 day 20 hours ago: The Imperial Federal Republic of Wizlandia of the region League of Nations proposed constructing embassies.
- 1 day 23 hours ago: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney agreed to construct embassies with Swingsack.
Laissez Faireholm Regional Message Board
False comparison, since the homesteading principle is what justifies land ownership. The children have not "homesteaded" or have done anything to deserve the cake.
Plus, you are thinking in anarchic terms - in order for this comparison to work, the mother would in still be an actor that ensures each portion the child worked for is justified (and upheld on said basis, reactively.) That being said, if justice was misdone, the courts (compromised of maybe, the other siblings in a democratic minarchist state) have always provided a means to fix it.
They are identical.
The only difference between the mob and this government is that the mob doesn't kill children.
To those whose rights have been diminished. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso
Again: what is the state but a PDA with a monopoly and coverage of free riders?
We don't have the obligation to pay the state (in the very general sense) the same way the state has no obligation (in the very general sense) to protect us. A state can still be a state even if it runs off a state-owned enterprise, or if it organises a lottery, or if it is run by magicians that make valuable money appear out of thin air. The state is still then a state, and no one has any obligation to that particular state. The state can order for the compensation for the appropriated private property in its jurisdiction, under the form of taxes (which is legitimate in this sense) to fund itself, in which case we would have the obligation to compensate for the injustices to be rectified.
I don't see how this is an attack against me or my arguments, seeing as I just tackled claims on the legitimacy of taxation. These events have been given no attention to either of us until now, mostly because they are tangential to the centre of the topic. What do you want me to say to something I never posited in the first place?
Big words, little backing: I was once a libertarian, and remain very interested in the ethics and philosophy behind it all, and the formed opinions I have made for myself are hardly an indoctrination. At this stage, we should really be asking ourselves which one of us is the one spouting the rhetoric, and which one is giving their individually-formed opinions.
It really doesn't matter. This isn't a question about anything else but distributive justice: I don't know why you're bringing homesteading into this. It isn't a false comparison because there is nothing else to compare it to. Is the en masse appropriation of private property, to the detriment of the rights of others to same common property, justified? If you say so, as you have been trying to tell me, you seriously need to back that up with something, as well as to why you suddenly stopped being a libertarian-- yes, dropping libertarian ethics halfway through your argument means you stopped being a libertarian at the same time. If you agree with me, Locke, Nozick, and the rest of the academic right, that it is not fair, then why are you pretending that taxation is illegitimate?
Rule number one of political philosophy and the legitimacy of the state: assume everything is in the state of nature, and think always in the state of nature.
Neither of the children "worked" for it. The cake was unowned: it was the common property of both the children, and they both had the exact same rights to it. If the cake is eaten whole by one child, the second child has lost the rights to accumulate the chocolate cake-- the child has been wronged, their rights diminished, and the basic principles of libertarian ethics contravened. It would be very unfortunate to see you turn to hypocrisy now, TLT.
A doctor and a drug addict?
For real, man?
Taxation is illegitimate, since it violates the axiom of self ownership. If compensation was merely enough, then I could go around and kill anyone who I wanted if I had enough money to pay off the grieving families. But you can see where this fails morally.
There is no detriment of others rights, because nobody has the positive right to property. It is you who have abandoned libertarianism, by suggesting that positive rights are valid here, and here only.
Otherwise, compensation is done in through the homesteading process, when one makes the land valuable, he gives back to society through mutual trade, whatever. No taxes are needed, and if anything, they are detrimental to the full value of compensation.
That being said, I'm still mostly a rule-consequentialist, I believe in it as following the NAP (a moral principle) axiomatically generally leads to good consequences, which I've explained partially above.
No. Stop. Listen to what I'm saying, because I don't think you're paying attention to it: the axiom of self-ownership is the basis for natural rights, and these natural rights are contravened when common property is turned into private property. This isn't something I imagine you should disagree with, anyway. I mean, it's part two of Locke's theory of property, so I don't see why you'd be so keen on forgetting about it just because it means changing your worldview. Locke said himself, and this was summarised by the Wikipedia article, "self-ownership allows a person the freedom to mix his or her labor with natural resources, thus converting common property into private property.", adding on that "Locke concludes that people need to be able to protect the resources they are using to live on, their property, and that this is a natural right. Nozick used this idea to form his Lockean proviso which governs the initial acquisition of property in a society. But in order for his ideas of ownership of property to get off the ground and be cogent, he devised the criterion to determine what makes property acquisition just, which is the proviso. The proviso says that though every appropriation of property is a diminution of another's rights to it, it is acceptable as long as it does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property."
Exchange, and mediums of doing so, are entitlements to private property. They make people worse off as they are entitled to fewer resources as they otherwise would have been if no resources were claimed. This injustice has to be compensated for through taxation. It's not a bad thing, so don't be so quick to judge it horribly criminal. If anything, withholding your compensation money is more horribly criminal than is the rectification of injustice. I agree that the state is a sometimes nefarious mechanism, and there are plenty of bad points about it. But you really have to look at taxation in the eye, study it, and take it for what it really is: justified.
No, that's nothing like the compensatory system Nozick spent half his book writing about. Please do the man some justice and look this part up before you say things like this.
There is no positive natural right-- of course not, legal privileges are positive rights, but all natural rights are negative rights. There is a right (a very important one) self-ownership gives us which allows for property to be accumulated within the bounds of legitimacy-- if you drop this one, we can't claim land. If you forget about this one, you have no theory of property. This right is the RIGHT TO ACCUMULATE PROPERTY, emphasis on ACCUMULATE. I have to put it in capital letters because I fear you will skip reading this. When all land is unclaimed, everyone has the right to accumulate all property that is unclaimed. When one part of the land is claimed, you no longer have the right to accumulate that property-- YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DIMINISHED IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. After all, if there is a right to accumulate X, how have your rights not been contravened when there is no X left to accumulate? Also note the subtle difference between the RIGHT TO ACCUMULATE PROPERTY, which is immensely important to propertarian ethics (without it you wouldn't have property), and the RIGHT TO PROPERTY, which doesn't exist and is a positive legal privilege.
That isn't compensation. Not even in the slightest.
It's all well and good that you're a consequentialist, and I wish you all the best in that, but then (if you are not a deontological libertarian) why are you pretending that deontological libertarianism, the doctrine I followed and the one you don't, posits things it doesn't-- when I am telling you that it does other things instead?
a.) Uhh, no it isn't. Because these natural rights are describing the negative ability to claim property only through the principle of self ownership only. I still have the ability to homestead land, don't I? And even if all the land is taken, my other two natural rights aren't contravened, no?
I have the negative ability to live, right at this moment. But I do not have the positive right become entitled to all the food in the world. Nor do I have to compensate the third world every time I eat, as Locke implies in b.)
I've read some of Nozick's work. Not all of it mind you, and perhaps not with as much gusto as you, but I did not see anything pretaining to what you are saying here. This is almost like attempting to fuse Rawls with Nozick.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO BE ENTITLED TO PROPERTY. That is a POSITIVE RIGHT. There is a right to accumulate property, but that's just that. And deontologically justified positive rights do not exist, whether or not they are derived from natural rights. You have the right to live, but you don't need to be compensated for fvcking trying to stay alive.
Nobody accepts Locke's little diatribe that there should be enough land left over for everyone and should be compensated for. Compensation is guaranteed through the homesteading process, regardless, there is no positive right to land as much as there is a positive right to ah, free wifi.
[quote]That isn't compensation. Not even in the slightest.[/quote]
Lol it isn't? So the Apple corp you don't think has compensated for their original appropriation of land and natural resources several times over already, and still deserves to be taxed by the Federal Gov?
Rule-consequentialist. Or moreso a deontological/consequentialist hybrid. Following the NAP (which sprouts from the self ownership axiom) leads to generally positive consequences, not necessary because it is moral. I accept the existence of obvious negative rights, and that allowing people these rights creates the best consequences (through competition, what have you).
To prove that the axioms you take make no sense, maybe?