0
1

I'm Allowed to Rob You (youtube.com)

go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (22子コメント)

This video explains why any Basic Income funded by taxation is fundamentally immoral.

This is why any attempts to create a BasicIncome scheme that is funded by taxation will be opposed by the right.

[–]Trollaatori 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (19子コメント)

You have no natural right to your property. Natural rights are a myth.

Taxation and property both stem from the same legal system and they're morally equivalent. You cannot enjoy the privileges of property, while denouncing the corresponding duties of taxation without being a vapid hypocrite.

Property is a law. Taxation is a law. Both systems are written in legislation of the state, and enforced by government agencies, even against those who do not consent to be regulated by such laws.

The vapid argument presented in the video, can be easily countered with the simple argument that:

"I never recognized your self-proclaimed property claims, therefore I'm allowed to take your stuff. Show me a contract where I agreed to accept your property rights."

Of course, I can't make that argument since I'm the citizen of a democratic country, who also enjoys the benefits of property law. Likewise, he cannot make the argument that he doesn't have to pay his taxes or that taxation is immoral, without also dismissing the protection afforded by property or other laws.

Laws do not require individual consent. They do not work like that. Ancaps are not opposed to coercive laws, they merely want them to adhere to their specific notions of acceptable coercion (which are distinctly dystopian)

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (18子コメント)

You have no natural right to your property. Natural rights are a myth.

I think if I snatch a fish from the ocean and you try to snatch it from me you should rightfully expect to be slapped with a fish.

This is the essence of natural property rights.

Taxation and property both stem from the same legal system and they're morally equivalent.

That's your own opinion. Property can exist without the need for, and in opposition to the state.

The state asserts that certain Property is illegal to own but people still claim ownership and even trade in contraband.

I can control assets on a blockchain with nothing more than the exclusive knowledge of a secret. How does maintaining exclusive knowledge of a secret require Law or the coercion that its enforcement represents?

"I never recognized your self-proclaimed property claims, therefore I'm allowed to take your stuff. Show me a contract where I agreed to accept your property rights."

In similar fashion, show me the contract where I agreed to be subject to taxation.

without also dismissing the protection afforded by property or other laws.

I'm pretty sure both Larken Rose and myself would be quite happy to stop paying for the protection that you claim exists.

Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

[–]Trollaatori 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think if I snatch a fish from the ocean and you try to snatch it from me you should rightfully expect to be slapped with a fish

So? that' your preference, nothing more. If we, however, live under a political system where the sovereign government has decreed that I own all the fishies, and it has a sufficiently powerful military, which can enforce my preferred distribution of fishies, then they're my property. Period.

Natural rights are a delusion. A superstition. And I find it infinitely amusing that loonitarians can mock the typical atheist for being a "stateist" when they themselves support such obvious superstitious drivel.

That's your own opinion. Property can exist without the need for, and in opposition to the state.

Nonsense. Property is just a law, and it's enforced by the same means as all other laws.

If you actually read development history of ancient economies, you will immediately notice how weak property rights have been in most human societies, until states began to effectively enforce them.

The state asserts that certain Property is illegal to own but people still claim ownership and even trade in contraband.

Yes. That's possession, not property, which is an important difference often lost to loonitarians.

Property is necessary for most advanced economies and commercial developments to occur. Solid property rights confer certainty, and with that certainty, large commercial institutions like joint-stock corporations can emerge, because without the protection of the state, large concentrations of capital invite the raiders and extortionists (as evidenced by the case of Silk Road and it's pathetic failures). The cost imposed by raiders and extortionists typically vastly exceed the cost of taxation.

In similar fashion, show me the contract where I agreed to be subject to taxation.

No, you can't turn it around again. First, you have to justify imposing your property preferences on others without their consent. Secondly, you have to present an argument why doing the same with taxes is somehow unjust.

I'm pretty sure both Larken Rose and myself would be quite happy to stop paying for the protection that you claim exists.

That's because you are privileged and oblivious to the advantages conferred to you by civilized society.

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

So? that' your preference, nothing more. If we, however, live under a political system where the sovereign

I'd say it's more of an observation of human behavior; but assuming you are right and it's just my preference I suggest that the sovereignty of a government amounts to nothing more than your own preference as well and nothing more. At best you can claim that many would agree with you; and likewise many would agree that you should keep your grubby hands off my fish.

Natural rights are a delusion. A superstition. And I find it infinitely amusing that loonitarians can mock the typical atheist for being a "stateist" when they themselves support such obvious superstitious drivel.

No more than statism itself is a delusion, in fact the person behind this video has a talk where he asserts that Government is a superstition

More accurately, the legitimacy we assign to it is the superstition.

[–]Trollaatori 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'd say it's more of an observation of human behavior;

Don't even try the naturalistic fallacy.

but assuming you are right and it's just my preference I suggest that the sovereignty of a government amounts to nothing more than your own preference as well and nothing more.

It isn't just my preference. It's the law.

Property is a rule. A rule need a rule-maker. Sovereign power is the ability to make rules backed by military power.

Therefore, property depends on state force, like all laws do.

At best you can claim that many would agree with you; and likewise many would agree that you should keep your grubby hands off my fish.

Again, no. Most countries that I know of, democracies too, have fishing permits and other regulations -- including property laws, which restrict fishers. So you can't make that statement.

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It isn't just my preference. It's the law.

Government is just because the government says so.

[–]Trollaatori 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The government is also the source your political and economic rights: every single one of them. That's the vital difference between a robber and the state. The robber isn't the source of your rights: You have no duties toward the robber. The robber doesn't have the legal mandate to determine what is your property and what isn't. A state decides what is your property and what isn't, because someone must determine that, otherwise the law doesn't work.

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The government you defend doesn't itself believe or contend that it is the originator of the rights that you claim.

[–]Trollaatori 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Laws can't change the nature of reality. It doesn't matter if the law says property is somehow supernatural, property in truth is just a legal arrangement.

[–]hnice 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think if I snatch a fish from the ocean and you try to snatch it from me you should rightfully expect to be slapped with a fish.

Yeah, but if you can't get it back, it's mine. You have no 'natural right' to it -- you have no recourse, there is no objective grounds on the basis of which you're going to get it back.

The only natural right is physical reality. If I can take it, it's mine, until someone takes it from me. That's natural rights to property.

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

The only natural right is physical reality. If I can take it, it's mine, until someone takes it from me. That's natural rights to property.

Sure that's a valid viewpoint; and this is the advantage of the blockchain. If a UBI is provided by a cryptocurrency the only way it can be taken from you is through force or coercion as you describe.

This makes it possible for a Cryptocurrency to distribute a UBI without the necessity for coercion or even State cooperation.

Even if you assert that the State is necessary to enforce property rights; the State is not necessary for the distribution of charity.

[–]hnice 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Describing the UBI as charity indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what it's about under many of its conceptions. I think we're talking past one another.

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You don't think a UBI is charitable? That's all I'm saying.

Maybe a better phrasing would be:

The State is not necessary for the egalitarian redistribution of funds.

[–]hnice 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

egalitarian redistribution

Again, no one's talking about charity, and no one's talking about egalitarianism. We're definitely talking past one another.

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Again, no one's talking about charity, and no one's talking about egalitarianism.

Then how would you describe a UBI?

[–]hnice 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I mean, it's a universal (or unqualified) basic income. That's all -- ascribing motive to it, such as charity, is an over-reach, and calling it 'egalitarian' implies that we're talking about equal incomes. We're not. We're talking about a guaranteed minimum, but that's a far, far cry from anything remotely equal.

[–]ElGuapoBlanco -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you saying the right is opposed to taxation?

[–]go1dfish0% Tax ~3000? Calorie Daily CryptoUBI[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm saying that in general yes, the right is opposed to tax increases; especially when those tax increases are used in the service of welfare.

Unfortunately the right does support taxes for the funding of militarism etc...