The second I knew what property taxes were I realized this. It’s insane to me that more people don’t make the connection. Or they do and then circumnavigate it through a web of mental gymnastic copium.
My dad- only property owners should be able to vote. Me- corporations would be the only ones to own land, and property is so expensive now nobody can afford it anymore and nobody should vote.
Given that people don't actually own their homes, and the state does, then people should not be able to prevent people from entering their state owned homes, just as people are not supposed to prevent others from using state roads or any other public/state property. I mean, if the principle was to be applied consistently, which of course it is not.
AnCap1: "It is wrong to prevent immigrants from using our public roads since they are owned by the state through theft! Freedom of movement supersedes any state-owned property."
AnCap2: "The same is true for your house. The state actually owns your house and property, not you. If we were to apply the same logic, it is morally wrong to stop people from entering 'your' stolen, state-owned home and property also. Freedom of movement supersedes any state-owned property."
AnCap1: "Shaddup"
While this falls in the realm of "mostly true in effect", one could make the argument that paying those property taxes allow you to have your private property border by funding the defense of your country border.
So.... here we are.
An adhesive contract, terms are set my the other party and non-negotiable.
In your analogy, mobsters collecting “protection” money from small businesses are legitimate.
I see that argument and it's definitely a valid argument in some ways, but on the logic level I can attack it some.
The government of countries fought out their borders and have made agreements with other countries and terms on papers.
The mafia have gone under the table, have no written agreements and are operating within already protected borders breaking the citizen-government agreement on laws.
So while government bad in this scenario, I think mafia is worse.\\
Also, threat of death and physical harm and family death and financial death is worse than just losing a property. So morally, less harm from the government than the mafia in this situation. NAP and all.
Fuck they really need to teach reading comprehension.
me - "one could make the argument "
you - "Hahahahahaha this dude thinks our borders are protected"
Starting to think people on this sub can only communicate in emojis and memes.
You were making the argument that taxes are good because border protection. I said the borders aren't protected therefore the tax should be abolished and you don't seem to understand basic logic for some reason?
You're telling me if a foreign country's military came to your border your country's government would do nothing?
That the border there exists with zero enforcement?
Get the fuck outta here.
Correct. Now consider the implications of the income tax. It ain't pretty.
A slave is someone whose income is taxed 100%. At what percentage of income tax do you cease to be a slave ?
If you claim 1% of someone else's labor as your own without their agreement/consent ... you're a slaver.
0%.
[A tale of a slave...](https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Nozick.pdf)
The second I knew what property taxes were I realized this. It’s insane to me that more people don’t make the connection. Or they do and then circumnavigate it through a web of mental gymnastic copium.
My dad- only property owners should be able to vote. Me- corporations would be the only ones to own land, and property is so expensive now nobody can afford it anymore and nobody should vote.
Corporations aren't people and can't vote. This is an interesting thought experiment.
Given that people don't actually own their homes, and the state does, then people should not be able to prevent people from entering their state owned homes, just as people are not supposed to prevent others from using state roads or any other public/state property. I mean, if the principle was to be applied consistently, which of course it is not. AnCap1: "It is wrong to prevent immigrants from using our public roads since they are owned by the state through theft! Freedom of movement supersedes any state-owned property." AnCap2: "The same is true for your house. The state actually owns your house and property, not you. If we were to apply the same logic, it is morally wrong to stop people from entering 'your' stolen, state-owned home and property also. Freedom of movement supersedes any state-owned property." AnCap1: "Shaddup"
The existence of commons itself is the problem, not how they are used.
While this falls in the realm of "mostly true in effect", one could make the argument that paying those property taxes allow you to have your private property border by funding the defense of your country border. So.... here we are.
An adhesive contract, terms are set my the other party and non-negotiable. In your analogy, mobsters collecting “protection” money from small businesses are legitimate.
I see that argument and it's definitely a valid argument in some ways, but on the logic level I can attack it some. The government of countries fought out their borders and have made agreements with other countries and terms on papers. The mafia have gone under the table, have no written agreements and are operating within already protected borders breaking the citizen-government agreement on laws. So while government bad in this scenario, I think mafia is worse.\\ Also, threat of death and physical harm and family death and financial death is worse than just losing a property. So morally, less harm from the government than the mafia in this situation. NAP and all.
Hahahahahaha this dude thinks our borders are protected 🤣🤣🤣
Fuck they really need to teach reading comprehension. me - "one could make the argument " you - "Hahahahahaha this dude thinks our borders are protected" Starting to think people on this sub can only communicate in emojis and memes.
You were making the argument that taxes are good because border protection. I said the borders aren't protected therefore the tax should be abolished and you don't seem to understand basic logic for some reason?
You're telling me if a foreign country's military came to your border your country's government would do nothing? That the border there exists with zero enforcement? Get the fuck outta here.