/liberty/ - Liberty

If taxation is theft then so is rent.

>>72718

>is there a way for a government to receive money without stealing it?

Yes, it's called donation where you give them money voluntarily.

>>72718

Instead of taxing everyone, charge fees on various services the government provides. If you don't use a certain service, you aren't paying for it.

>>72725

This would still be immoral since they're using the threat of force to shut down competition, but that's different from theft.

Government is oppreshun

Theft is ok

>>72718

>What if we were to decide that the land belongs to everyone

If you get absolutely every single one of you to agree on it, then yea.

> expected to pay a yearly fee for its use or else face eviction

It's already impossible to own land, do nothing with it and still keep it. Even choosing not to use it affects its utility and value. There is a cap on fertility, just as there is with a forest you've chosen not to cut down just yet, but it still stands that abstaining from immediate consumption does not constitute misuse or "hoarding."

Unless every single human is entitled to resources just for existing. Because then I'll be sure to come to you when my 20 children need food and you have no choice but to feed them, and every single Democractic decision becomes a clan struggle between large families competing to take more than they have to give without being productive.

>What if the only tax was a tax on businesses

A big IF you get them to agree on said tax without pulling an "oh, and by the way, you're getting taxed for this now that the elections are done." You're still creating an incentive to just not have a business, but there is a way to make it legitimate if there's consent.

>>72718

>is there a way for a government to receive money without stealing it?

It would have to obtain that money through voluntary transactions.

>What if we were to decide that the land belongs to everyone, and land "owners" are merely renting it from the public and expected to pay a yearly fee for its use or else face eviction.

You would have to have a logical basis for that assumption. If a group of people decided to voluntarily band together, and pool their property claims, this could be achieved. They would only have the rights to that land which they had properly and voluntarily acquired, though. They can't just draw a shape on a map and say "that's mine-er ours".

If, however, the government instead just says "because you live here, your land actually belongs to us and you have to pay us for it", then they are engaging in armed robbery.

>What if the only tax was a tax on businesses, and if they refused to pay, they would have their business license revoked and be banned from selling goods or services?

That would be compulsorily restricting their freedom to use their property. That's a violation of property rights.

>There's still a threat of force there, but it's the difference between choosing to break the law because your boss told you to, and having the IRS demand gibs or they'll shoot your dog.

And what happens if they revoke your license and you do business anyway? Does the government merely get annoyed, or do they enforce their law? How long does the business owner have to say "no" before somebody points a gun at him?

>>72733

>They would only have the rights to that land which they had properly and voluntarily acquired, though.

But all land was once public property before some people arbitrarily decided they had a claim over it and took whatever they could defend by force from everyone else. Is that private ownership even valid considering that it's effectively stolen property?

>That would be compulsorily restricting their freedom to use their property. That's a violation of property rights.

By that logic, any law is a restriction of freedom, even laws that are strictly in accordance with the NAP. It becomes a violation of property rights to say "you can't murder people for fun" or "you can't own people."

>And what happens if they revoke your license and you do business anyway? Does the government merely get annoyed, or do they enforce their law?

Then the employees that beak the law by continuing to sell products and services would be voluntarily breaking the law, the same as if their boss told them to go steal something. If all of the employees quit because they're not getting paid because they're not allowed to do their job and only the owner is left, then the goods and services he sells become a private exchange between individuals not requiring a license.

>>72742

>But all land was once public property before some people arbitrarily decided they had a claim over it

It was unowned until someone started using it, which is a huge difference.

>>72718

The lottery. I know that in the early days of the U.S. that's how the government got some of its revenue.

>>72751

So, to use a historically recent example, the native Americans weren't using the land for anything before European settlers came?

I'm not using this example to invoke the "noble savages vs the white devils" trope; the same thing happened in Europe and the rest of the world as well, just not as recently.

>>72742

>But all land was once public property

Unused and unowned land is not "public". It's nobody's property. Property has always had its origins in use and maintenance, which are not "arbitrary."

>took whatever they could defend by force from everyone else

Then the only people who would own anything would be very strong and militant large families. Property ownership is not possible without consent as much as you hate it. People generally agree to an order of mutual respect for private property. No police force has the power to enforce something like this on such a large scale.

> It becomes a violation of property rights to say "you can't murder people for fun" or "you can't own people."

Read what you wrote AGAIN. How can you have property rights over someone else's private property, which their body is? Using private property to trade does not equate in any way to murder and theft. You're entirely out of the ballpark.

>And what happens if they revoke your license and you do business anyway?

You missed the point of the question. What happens to property ownership when a third party can restrict your use of your property on a whim? It's a contradiction in terms for something to be yours, but ultimate control to lie in a third party. That is not private property. You are a worker in someone else's collective plantation, being useful enough to be allowed to take most of what you earn.

>>72726

What would be the threat of force there?

>>72758

No. There were tribes building permanent settlements and growing crops long before the arrival of Europeans, so even by unreasonable definitions, the land was being used.

>>72761

I was trying to imagine something anyone would define as a government that wasn't funded on theft. The reason it's still coercive is because they would still be banning private competition. If it allowed them to function, it would be indistinguishable from them and the government would cease to exist.

>>72768

And so you're saying that the natives owned that land and that it was stolen from them by force in some cases and deception in others (examples being Manhattan and the practice of buying land possessed by one tribe from a rival tribe). These same circumstances occurred thousands of years before in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and this is in addition to a long history of governments annexing land and then granting it to citizens in exchange for service. So back to the original question, is it possible own this land when the basis of that ownership is theft? How is that any different from doing the same thing today? Even if you were to moan about how the land was stolen from its rightful owners this year, it would all be owned by new rightful owners next year, wouldn't it?

>>72771

> So back to the original question, is it possible own this land when the basis of that ownership is theft?

Yes, their ancestors owned the land, the descendants themselves do not. As you can imagine, the ownership of land changes hands numerous times, sometimes in history, rather violently, other times not so much. However the individuals who had their land stolen are dead, along with the people who stole that land. To try to pursue some sort of legal action today in regards to a theft that happened hundreds of years ago is pointless, you'd effectively be persecuting the son for the sins of the great-grandfather. If the theft of the land in question was rather recent and someone who actually lived on the land is still alive and present, then there is an absolute case in restoring justice to the person who lived on that property, other than a scenario like that however; there is nothing that can be done.

>>72774

>Theft is okay because it happened a long time ago

Why not steal it again, then? It will only be immoral for a few years.

>>72772

>Let's say there's a large tract of land, and it's all owned by everyone. We all own this land and it's a rather nice land, and so one day I decide it'd be nice to build a house near a couple of trees, and along with this I decide to keep other people out of the house as it is my property. This creates problems for onr individual as he thinks it's an eyesore, and wants it gone. This results in a stalemate however, his ownership is ultimately just as valid as mine but mine is also just as valid as his, so we get into a conflict and eventually I demand that he leaves and threaten to use fore if he doesn't.

What if that land is owned by everyone, but in exchange for a yearly fee, you're granted exclusive editorial control over that land? You get the ability to build your house, and in return, he gets gibs.

>>72782

>what is statute of limitations

>>72786

>You are not your ancestor, you are not entitled to the same properties that they were.

My ancestors didn't own the land and I'm not claiming it as my personal property.

>the last thing I want to do as an owner of the land is to be subjugated for something I supposedly have ownership rights over.

You wouldn't have ownership rights in this case, you would have stewardship rights. You're in charge of managing that land however you see fit on behalf of the public. If you think that land could really use a house on it, that's fine, it's your call.

>>72742

>By that logic, any law is a restriction of freedom, even laws that are strictly in accordance with the NAP.

Any statute to which you have not personally agreed, sure. There is such a thing as non-statutory law.

>It becomes a violation of property rights to say "you can't murder people for fun" or "you can't own people."

False. The act of murdering or owning people is itself an aggression, and therefore you do not have the right of it in the first place. It is not aggression to stop aggression.

>Then the employees that beak the law by continuing to sell products and services would be voluntarily breaking the law, the same as if their boss told them to go steal something.

But conducting your business is not an aggression, unless you have first agreed not to do so. By interfering with the business owner's right to conduct his affairs without interfering with anyone else's liberty, you have violated his.

>then the goods and services he sells become a private exchange between individuals not requiring a license.

So now you've decided that a sole proprietorship is not a business?

Suppose I, as a sole proprietor, make a private agreement with another individual; I purchase his services for a pre-agreed rate. That's still a private exchange between individuals. Now suppose that the service I have hired him to provide is to help me to buy and sell my other property. That's still a private exchange between individuals. You've arbitrarily decided that some exchanges are business and others are not.

>>72758

>the native Americans weren't using the land for anything before European settlers came?

I don't think anybody here is interested in defending that. In fact, there's plenty of historical evidence that probably most of the American Indians did exercise property rights, some of which was held under valid claims, and other taken by conquest, which is not a valid claim. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to rectify many of these injustices, no matter how much we wish we could.

>>72771

>is it possible own this land when the basis of that ownership is theft?

No, but the private owners (rather than the state entities) do not lay claim on the basis of that theft. If somebody else is able to demonstrate an empirically superior claim to that land, then it is rightfully theirs.

If the state collapses, and my plot of land reverts to my sole ownership, then it is mine unless anyone else can show that they have a superior claim. If somebody comes along twenty years later and shows that the land on which I now live was siezed through eminent domain against his will before it was sold to me, then it has come to light that said land is not mine, and it behooves me to make arrangements to return it to its rightful owner. If it's the former owner's son, and he can show that the land would have been transferred to him, then it is his. If a man with knee-length braids tells me a story about how this land belonged to his ninth-great grandfather, then maybe he would have had a claim, but without sufficient evidence to back it up, I don't have any obligation to surrender it to him.

See how that works?

>>72782

Not how it works. See above.

>>72785

>What if that land is owned by everyone, but in exchange for a yearly fee, you're granted exclusive editorial control over that land? You get the ability to build your house, and in return, he gets gibs.

Again, that's doable, if that collective ownership can be established legitimately. Those parties who exercise any degree of control or exclusion over that land (like the entity that says who is and isn't the steward, and enforces the limitations of that stewardship) would have to have established a legitimate claim over that land just like any private individual would have. Ultimately, that means that some private actor(s) would have to establish a claim, and voluntarily transfer that claim to the entity in question.

>>72787

>statute of limitations

>statute

That's not how it works either.

>>72788

>My ancestors didn't own the land and I'm not claiming it as my personal property.

Neat! So you have no conflicting claim to that property and we can all mind our own respective business.

>>72792

>>statute of limitations

>>statute

>That's not how it works either.

While I think that they can be agreed upon yes in this case it wouldn't apply since I doubt the natives and the rest of the population can make a unified decision.