Please tell me I'm missing something. I've gotten into heated debates over this, specifically government grants for musicians.
While pooping, I thumbed through the Ethics Of Liberty and stumbled up to chapter 24...
THE MORAL STATUS OF RELATIONS TO THE STATE ...This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, “stealing” from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, “homesteading” property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society—a positive good...
THE MORAL STATUS OF RELATIONS TO THE STATE
...This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, “stealing” from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, “homesteading” property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society—a positive good...
Okay, so I'm a stand up guy if I get some tax money for myself? Did Murray just give me a green flag to appropriate a music grant?..
I'm at odds with myself on this one.
Aristippus:I think ultimately the state will try to spend as much money as possible, so it is preferable for this money to be spent on relatively worthwhile things (e.g. Rothbard's research) rather than detrimental things (e.g. propaganda)
False dilemma IMO.
DD5, now you mention it, what about the theft called inflation. How can one document how much he lost from that, with his loss being the money printer's gain?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Lady, forgive me for skipping the finer points...
ladyphoenix:I think that part of the problem, though, is that those taxes are put into a pool.
Same thing happens at banks. Does anyone think that the bank can't return money to the person who put it in? Sure, it can go bankrupt (a separate argument) but it does indeed know what goes into the pool, what gets expensed out, what gets loaned out, what gets fractionally inflated, used as reserves etc. Modern fiscal infrastructure is very well developed.
ladyphoenix:If you have truly answered those questions in your thread two years ago, could you post a link, or send it to me outside of this thread? I'm very interested in the arguments you would have posed on this topic.
I will try to find it. We were debating the break up of the state in a way which didn't give the smelly leftists control of everything just because they had proof of use via welfare receipts and spots in the DMV line.
Smiling Dave:DD5, now you mention it, what about the theft called inflation. How can one document how much he lost from that, with his loss being the money printer's gain?
Wrong question to ask. Go one logical progression deeper before you choose the issue.
ladyphoenix:Does this mean I should only be taking from thieves things they stole from me specifically?
Yes, unless you plan on giving the other things you take back to the people from whom they were stolen.
ladyphoenix:Also, this doesn't address whether or not I know for a fact that the man stole the property in question. If it looks like mine, and mine is missing, should I be permitted to take his property from him pending him proving he didn't steal it from me (or anyone else)? What if it's impossible to determine whether or not the property in his possession is actually my rightful property?
There's really no difference here between you doing it yourself and someone else ("PDA" or whatever) doing it on your behalf. Strictly speaking, unless the item that was stolen from you is unique, there's no way you can completely prove that you're taking back what was stolen from you. I don't think "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is a reasonable legal standard in dealing with theft cases.
ladyphoenix:I don't know that I like the idea of taking property "in hopes" that you were right, even if you're willing to repay them for the damages should you be wrong. Granted... if a person did that one time and was wrong and held laible financially... I don't think he'd be likely to do it twice... I don't know. This whole situation feels ripe for exploitation.
What do you mean by "exploitation", exactly? As far as I understand the term, a fully free-market society couldn't completely eliminate exploitation or opportunity for it.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
LS,
You speak in riddles.
Smiling Dave:LS, You speak in riddles.
While I agree his response was rather cryptic (why be cryptic?), I'm guessing his "one logical progression deeper" is the government money monopoly.
Autolykos: boniek:Take money from the state. As much as you can. Use social programs if they benefit you directly. Do everything you can to raise your standard of living. Be happy. I'm an ancap and use state whenever I can, because I'm aware that by using it's services where it suits me I'm in fact accelerating it's demise. Banksters are fcking heroes in my eyes. I wish I had such skill like them to do exactly the same! I mean what is better way to show that system we have does not work and at the same time rise your standards of living? It's showing result of best ancap theories in reality. Lobbyists/banksters/etc are basically like hackers. They show weakness in systems they crack and make money off it. IMHO nothing wrong with that. If people can't learn from mistakes and see epic fail of their ideas then for the better for hackers/banksters/lobbyists. With all due respect, I find this point of view to be disturbing. By your reasoning, you should also applaud car thieves for "showing weakness in systems they crack and making money off of it". If people can't learn to lock their car doors, etc. then the better for the car thieves.
boniek:Take money from the state. As much as you can. Use social programs if they benefit you directly. Do everything you can to raise your standard of living. Be happy. I'm an ancap and use state whenever I can, because I'm aware that by using it's services where it suits me I'm in fact accelerating it's demise. Banksters are fcking heroes in my eyes. I wish I had such skill like them to do exactly the same! I mean what is better way to show that system we have does not work and at the same time rise your standards of living? It's showing result of best ancap theories in reality. Lobbyists/banksters/etc are basically like hackers. They show weakness in systems they crack and make money off it. IMHO nothing wrong with that. If people can't learn from mistakes and see epic fail of their ideas then for the better for hackers/banksters/lobbyists.
With all due respect, I find this point of view to be disturbing. By your reasoning, you should also applaud car thieves for "showing weakness in systems they crack and making money off of it". If people can't learn to lock their car doors, etc. then the better for the car thieves.
Are you going to stop thieves by moralizing them? Better thieves inspire better security solutions. More thieves inspire thoughts about why there are that many. I see nothing disturbing here. Thieves in that sense have good role to play in society.
boniek:Are you going to stop thieves by moralizing them? Better thieves inspire better security solutions. More thieves inspire thoughts about why there are that many. I see nothing disturbing here. Thieves in that sense have good role to play in society.
My issue with your viewpoint isn't about stopping thieves. It's about you apparently considering their theft to be justified in some sense. This simply goes against the Non-Aggression Principle.
liberty student:Lady, forgive me for skipping the finer points...
liberty student:Same thing happens at banks. Does anyone think that the bank can't return money to the person who put it in? Sure, it can go bankrupt (a separate argument) but it does indeed know what goes into the pool, what gets expensed out, what gets loaned out, what gets fractionally inflated, used as reserves etc. Modern fiscal infrastructure is very well developed.
You said:
So when a thief steals something from you, you lose any title to it?
To which RJM II replied:
If you can't figure out who he stole it from, yes.
Your reply was:
We know exactly who was taxed and how much.
I would argue that we don't know this as individuals... or at least I don't, and I wouldn't even know where to begin. Government does, but I don't think that it would hand over that information readily. I don't know that it's reasonable to expect that someone who appropriated a portion of government assets be required to find out exactly which taxpayers' payments funded that asset. If we were in the process of dismantling state completely, we would [presumably] have access to that information, but on any scale smaller than total dismantling... I don't think this is a reasonable expectation.
I could be persuaded otherwise, however.
liberty student:I will try to find it. We were debating the break up of the state in a way which didn't give the smelly leftists control of everything just because they had proof of use via welfare receipts and spots in the DMV line.
Autolykos:While I agree his response was rather cryptic (why be cryptic?)
Why not? :)
Autolykos:I'm guessing his "one logical progression deeper" is the government money monopoly.
No one is entitled to a fixed purchasing power.
liberty student: boniek:I'm an ancap and use state whenever I can Then what is the difference between you and a statist in method (not in motivation)?
boniek:I'm an ancap and use state whenever I can
Then what is the difference between you and a statist in method (not in motivation)?
Method in achieving my own goals? What do you mean by statist method?
liberty student:Why not [be cryptic]? :)
Oh come on, you know it doesn't help things any. :P
liberty student:No one is entitled to a fixed purchasing power.
I take it my guess was wrong then. Is the above what you meant by "one logical progression deeper"? Or is it just another hint?
Regardless, if no one is entitled to a fixed purchasing power, then it's okay to tax them? Do you disagree that inflation is "taxation by other means"?
boniek:Method in achieving my own goals? What do you mean by statist method?
I think he means you seem to condone aggression, at least implicitly.
ladyphoenix:I would argue that we don't know this as individuals.
But that would be an argument from ignorance. It wouldn't falsify what I am saying.
I try to make very simple, very precise statements, without implying all sorts of other things.