«12. . .3,5263,5273,5283,5293,5303,5313,532. . .3,6073,608»
Private property has to be compensated for. This isn't a new notion. It's as old as Locke himself.
Your labor however, isn't private property.
And no, it doesn't.
LOL. When the mob does it it's called extortion, but when government does it it's called "paying your fair share."
It is. And taxes are not how it's done.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41838752/LFBC/my_vspr/index.html
LOL. When a druggie does it it's called doing heroine, but when a doctor does it it's called "vaccination."
Literally the crux of your argument relies on one institution to be identical to the other.
The fruits of your labour however, are private property, or entitlements to such.
Of course private property has to he compensated for. If you don't think so, you have a pretty weird vision of distributive justice. If a mother renounces ownership of chocolate cake and leaves it on the table for her two children-- but no specific one child, as to render it common between them-- is one child eating it ALL justifiable? I would say not: the child would have had to compensate at least a bit for this theory of distributive justice to actually be a cogent theory of distributive justice.
How isn't it? If the state has the responsibility to protect individuals from harm and to enforce their rights to property, how does rectification of injustices not fall into their list of responsibilities as well?
Incorrect. Albeit they are similar.
I bet you think Hilary Clinton is a heroine. As is Margaret Thatcher.
Private property is compensated for, and it has nothing to do with taxes.
Hahahaha. Wait, you actually believe this nonsense? The state has the responsibility to protect individuals?
Hahahaha.
The state has no responsibility to protect anyone. Any service it may provide, including the protection of someone's private property is merely a side effect of the state working to achieve its own goals.
So I typo'd at nine in the morning, big deal.
How is private property compensated for, if not through taxation?
What is the state but a private defense agency with a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force that covers free-riders as well as "paying customers"?
The sales price. What the hell do taxes have to do with anything?
It is not private, it is not a defense agency, and it is not legitimate.
While we have an obligation to pay the state, the state has no obligation to protect us.
Unowned pieces of land can't be bought because they lack an owner. They can only be appropriated. Appropriating unowned pieces of land has to be compensated, else its possession is illegitimate.
It's a play on words from Nozick's justification of a state: take a private defense agency, that's legitimate, give it a monopoly, that's legitimate, and it's called the "ultraminimal state" as it meets all the criteria necessary to be a state without being what we would actually call a state. Add onto it the fact that it covers free riders in the system of justice, that's legitimate, you have the minimal state-- without contravening any single law or principle set out by libertarian ethics. My question was: if this is what the state is, how does the state not have any duty to protect us?
No one has any obligation to anything or to do anything. So long as the state exists, however, its calls for protection are legitimate.
Compensated to whom, and for what reason?
Private agencies would have a contractual obligation to provide protection. There is no such thing for the state.
We have an obligation to pay taxes. Many people have gone to prison for tax evasion. The state has no obligation to protect us. Why? Because the state makes the rules, obviously.
One of many such cases...
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
What are you talking about? Wesley Snipes (albeit, a high profile case, and not typical) served three years in prison despite being acquitted of tax evasion, acquitted of conspiring to defraud the United States, acquitted of filing false claims.
He was found guilty of three counts of willful failure to file income tax returns.
The man's crime, is literally, not giving the government pieces of paper.
You have the audacity of talking to me about obligations? Tell Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro and Miriam Douglas about the state's obligation to provide protection. They were misled, and indoctrinated just like you. They thought they had a case. They thought wrong.
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?
Rights are not diminished. And even if they were, a group of criminals getting paid, is not compensation for that.
Again? You see no difference in them? The differences have been explained to you.
And yet most, if not all states have not set up businesses to fund their activities and rely on taxes. Which we have an obligation to pay. Despite the fact that the state has no obligation to protect us.
You haven't tackled sh!t. Taxation is only legitimate because the state, which makes the rules, says it is. IOW, it is not legitimate at all.
I showed how people have an obligation to pay taxes, and the state has no obligation to protect people. Your entire fvcking argument.
The entire education system backs me.
Fun fact. The liberals ranked FDR as the best president. Considering the New Deal, Social Security, financial reforms, and on and on and on, it makes perfect sense.
You would figure the conservatives, would hate his guts. And you would be wrong. They rank him third. In fact, there is almost no differences of rankings between liberals and conservatives.
How can that be?
I speculate it's the state funded education system that paints them all as heroes that is responsible. You know, indoctrination.
They extort us to blow sh!t up and kill people. Help the survivors rebuild, only to blow it up again. They cage people that have not harmed anyone. Who the fvck are they?
Don't give me this legitimacy bullshit. Their authority is not legitimate.
«12. . .3,5263,5273,5283,5293,5303,5313,532. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
