[Nunt]

Taxes and property rights both rely on the state for legitimacy. If you think that the state is not legitimate, then neither taxes nor property rights

I disagree that the only legitimazation of property is done by the state. I agree that the states try to legitimize property but they fail at it because the states themselves do not have legitimacy.

There are of course other ways to legitimize property such as the NAP.

I think you have insufficiently argued why gouvernement is the only possible source of legitimazing property.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not claiming that property rights can only ever be made legitimate by the state.

It is entirely possible that property rights can be made legitimate through some other means, but as it stands right now, they are made legitimate by the state.

[Drlee]

There are of course other ways to legitimize property such as the NAP.

The NAP only has legitimacy when given the force of law. Before that can happen it must be carefully defined for you seem to have admitted that even it has limits and requires a nuanced interpretation. The process of giving a principle legitimacy is called "lawmaking". To make a law you must have a group empowered to make those laws. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect absolute adherence to those laws without an enforcement mechanism.......and so it goes.

I think you have insufficiently argued why gouvernement is the only possible source of legitimazing property.

What does "legitimizing property" mean anyway? Are you imbuing property with rights or are you giving rights to the individual who possesses it? A rock has no rights so the issue is what my rights as the possessor of that rock are. We know that I shall not own that rock forever. So there are limits on my possession of the rock.

We see an interesting example of that right now. ISIS possesses a part of the Middle East. They claim that they legitimately possess it. So this group decides to destroy ancient monuments and works of art. They are destroying the heritage of the entire world. But if property rights reign supreme and the legitimacy of those rights begin with possession, what they are doing is just fine. But we both know that it is not. It would be fatuous to argue that the are aggressing against the owners of this property unless you first conclude that there are rightful owners and that those owners are so large and diverse a group that this group transcends international borders. Now you are in the realm of international law. Who makes that?

What if the property you are attempting to imbue with rights is a book? I possess the book. I purchased it from the author who, created it for a particular purpose. Do I therefor own the right to reproduce this book for sale to others? Many ANCAPS, mostly young, so want to pirate video games, movies and music that they draw a line at intellectual property. Are you one of those? do you maintain that the rights to my song end when I put it out there for sale? If this is true of a drug, the result will instantly end research into new drugs which, if we as a group want to further medical research, means that we must fund, through some mechanism this research. But you would eliminate government in that process.

Suppose I invent a new process to purify sea water for human use. Should I have the right to exploit that process for profit? Who then owns the water I produce? Who owned it before? Are we to conclude that 'you' own the right to sell the land on which I build my plant to me for profit, the electric company owns the electrons and the wires that go to my plant and may profit from them, and the manufacturers of the equipment from which my plant is made belongs to them so they all may profit from them yet the decades of research and hard work that I invested in developing the process has no value at all other than to be present at the starting line? And that once my research is out there, anyone may exploit it at will because it is not "property"? And who owns the water from the ocean? May any person claiming inconvenience force millions to be without water because we have imbued their property with inalienable rights?

So do you maintain that the absolutely mundane possession, a book, has "rights" but the extraordinary ability to order the words within has no value at all?

Now you have endlessly maintained that we have not presented arguments counter to yours. We have, of course. I have asked you many questions, above. In a debate, it is customary for you to answer them. I do not expect you to do that. You wish to argue simply at some macro level but the devil is in the details as they say. Have at it. No more claims we have not laid out an argument. Get to work and defend your position.

[Nunt]

I am not claiming that property rights can only ever be made legitimate by the state.

It is entirely possible that property rights can be made legitimate through some other means, but as it stands right now, they are made legitimate by the state.

So then to reject the state is not an automatic rejection of property rights. You only propose that in order to have property rights in absence of a state, one needs to find an entirely new mechanism to define and give legitimacy to property rights. Now this is exactly what I had in mind. Find a replacement for the ilegitimate state. And you are right, modern property as upheld by the state are not really what I had in mind. So I agree that modern property rights wouldn't necessarly be legitimate and we need to evaluate whether they'll still be legitimate.

So, if taxes are theft, then modern property rights are also immoral.

So would you not agree that given what I have said here above, your earlier statement revolves upon the modern property rights (my highlights). It would not be logical for me to believe that taxation is theft and at the same time strongly believe in the current governments' view of property rights. However, this does not mean I can never believe in the validity of any property rights. This really stresses the nuance that you made in your post which leads me to say that I can believe in property rights and at the same time believe that taxation is theft.

[Pants-of-dog]

So then to reject the state is not an automatic rejection of property rights.

And likewise, rejecting the state is not an automatic rejection of taxes.

You only propose that in order to have property rights in absence of a state, one needs to find an entirely new mechanism to define and give legitimacy to property rights. Now this is exactly what I had in mind. Find a replacement for the ilegitimate state. And you are right, modern property as upheld by the state are not really what I had in mind. So I agree that modern property rights wouldn't necessarly be legitimate and we need to evaluate whether they'll still be legitimate.

We could also find a legitimate tax system.

So would you not agree that given what I have said here above, your earlier statement revolves upon the modern property rights (my highlights). It would not be logical for me to believe that taxation is theft and at the same time strongly believe in the current governments' view of property rights. However, this does not mean I can never believe in the validity of any property rights. This really stresses the nuance that you made in your post which leads me to say that I can believe in property rights and at the same time believe that taxation is theft.

And you could also logically claim that only modern taxation systems are theft.

[Truth To Power]

There are of course other ways to legitimize property such as the NAP.

Property in land and other natural resources inherently violates the NAP, as already proved, as it purposes to initiate violence against all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

I think you have insufficiently argued why gouvernement is the only possible source of legitimazing property.

When has there ever existed property in land except under government, or by the initiative of people who were accustomed to it, and knew that if they could just get the land recognized as their property, they'd be able to take everything from everyone else?

[Nunt]

Why don't you make a nice long post discussing this "nuance". Be specific. Tell us where your lines are. And then tell us why we should agree with those lines.

You won't do this because you can't. Why? Because the flaws in your beloved NAP will be quickly exposed. You are getting nowhere because we are disassembling your arguments. You are forwarding your broad generalities and then when we specifically pull them apart you are whining because we don't understand your "nuance". Make us understand. Here is your chance.

The problem is not that I am not making any sufficiently long posts. It is that you refuse to understand what I am saying and you start inventing things and then attacking that strawman.

If you were genuinly interested, I might be bothered to explain it all over again, but most of your replies are either condacending or plain insulting.

The NAP only has legitimacy when given the force of law. Before that can happen it must be carefully defined for you seem to have admitted that even it has limits and requires a nuanced interpretation. The process of giving a principle legitimacy is called "lawmaking". To make a law you must have a group empowered to make those laws. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect absolute adherence to those laws without an enforcement mechanism.......and so it goes.

You equate "lawmaking" with government, but it is my belief this can be done without taxation and without a monopoly on force.

What does "legitimizing property" mean anyway? Are you imbuing property with rights or are you giving rights to the individual who possesses it?

No.

A rock has no rights so the issue is what my rights as the possessor of that rock are. We know that I shall not own that rock forever. So there are limits on my possession of the rock.

Okay... How is this relevant?

We see an interesting example of that right now. ISIS possesses a part of the Middle East. They claim that they legitimately possess it. So this group decides to destroy ancient monuments and works of art. They are destroying the heritage of the entire world. But if property rights reign supreme and the legitimacy of those rights begin with possession, what they are doing is just fine. But we both know that it is not. It would be fatuous to argue that the are aggressing against the owners of this property unless you first conclude that there are rightful owners and that those owners are so large and diverse a group that this group transcends international borders. Now you are in the realm of international law. Who makes that?

Did I say legitimacy of property begins with possession? You keep inventing these things that I am supposedly saying. Like the previous time where you invented that I am backpedalling. I called you out on that because it should be easy for you to demonstrate if true. You say I was backpedalling, well then at one time I was saying A and at a later time I was saying not-A

Now you have endlessly maintained that we have not presented arguments counter to yours. We have, of course. I have asked you many questions, above. In a debate, it is customary for you to answer them. I do not expect you to do that. You wish to argue simply at some macro level but the devil is in the details as they say. Have at it. No more claims we have not laid out an argument. Get to work and defend your position.

You only present arguements against points I never made. I have only been argueing one specific issue here, namely: that tacit consent is a circular reasoning. Everything else is your imagination. These paragraphs you wrote on IP are a good example of these. I never said anything about IP here. If you want to talk about IP, open a new discussion. Maybe if I'm interested, I'll join in.

[Nunt]

And likewise, rejecting the state is not an automatic rejection of taxes.

Well for me its the other way around. I reject the state because it taxes, I don't reject taxes because it is done by the state.

We could also find a legitimate tax system. And you could also logically claim that only modern taxation systems are theft.

If you have any ideas, I'm all open for it. But for me legitimacy stems from consent. Real consent that is.

Property in land and other natural resources inherently violates the NAP, as already proved, as it purposes to initiate violence against all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

I think such a reasoning would make any theory of property impossible because if you argue that if someone uses land and others can't use it at the same time is aggression, then I believe that you must also argue that if someone eats an apple and others can't eat that apple anymore, then that also must be aggression. This seems problematic because people wouldn't be able to do anything because everything would be aggression.

Furthermore, a land-value tax is not solution. If someone is using the land and pays a land value tax to the government, how does solve the problem of aggression? If we assume that the person who uses the land is aggressing against me, then this aggression does not go away if he pays a third party. The only way that there would be no aggression is when I give consent for my land to be in use. If you say land ownership is aggression against everyone else, then everyone else must unanimously agree to someone using the land. Why would majority be sufficient?

When has there ever existed property in land except under government, or by the initiative of people who were accustomed to it, and knew that if they could just get the land recognized as their property, they'd be able to take everything from everyone else?

Just because something hasn't happened in the past, does not make it impossible.

[velvet]

In practical terms, however, the current existence of property rights does depend on state enforcement.

Yes. Without a doubt.

But then you were, in the piece of text I highlighted from, (it seems) discussing how taxation being immoral leads to private property being immoral. This is the case if and only if (as determined so far) an an-cap relies on contractualism for the basis for her views. If she is relying on natural law - i.e., the NAP - then this criticism (conflation) is invalid. This is what Nunt seems to be doing. I see it as entirely reasonable (in terms of argumentation) for Nunt to reject taxation but support private-property rights at the same time despite both of them being at the moment dependent on the state because Nunt's argument isn't based on reasoning that either are immoral because of a dependence on the state.

---

Before that can happen it must be carefully defined for you seem to have admitted that even it has limits and requires a nuanced interpretation.

This isn't the case at all. If it was countries with constitutions wouldn't need courts to interpret the nuances of these constitutions.

The NAP is supposed to act as a guiding principal for legal systems. It's nuances are intended to be dealt with in the case law.

[Pants-of-dog]

What is a "natural law"?

How is the NAP a "natural law"?

[velvet]

I'm not a supporter of natural law before we begin this. But it's nice being able to put those law modules I take to use:

What is a "natural law"?

It's generally defined as universal laws derived through reason from human nature.

Reason is objective I hope we'll both agree.
Human nature is arguably less so. However most natural-law theorists I've read believe that it can be determined like we determine the nature of properties like steel.

How is the NAP a "natural law"?

It starts with the premise that all individuals own their own person. This is a product of human nature.
It then derives multiple multiple principals from this (right to free speech, right to private-property).
These principals are combined in the NAP.

Here's Rothbard's argument:

[T]he nature of man is such that each individual person must, in order to act, choose his own ends and employ his own means in order to attain them. Possessing no automatic instincts, each man must learn about himself and the world, use his mind to select values, learn about cause and effect, and act purposively to maintain himself and advance his life. Since men can think, feel, evaluate, and act only as individuals, it becomes vitally necessary for each man’s survival and prosperity that he be free to learn, choose, develop his faculties, and act upon his knowledge and values. This is the necessary path of human nature; to interfere with and cripple this process by using violence goes profoundly against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and prosperity. Violent interference with a man’s learning and choices is therefore profoundly ‘antihuman’; it violates the natural law of man’s needs.

Rothbard, M. (1977), For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto Ludwig Von Misis Institute p. 33.

I'll add that I disagree with this argument on a number of levels - Is-Ought problem, presumes free will, etc. - so I won't be so inclined to engage with the criticisms you might propose in response before you do.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's generally defined as universal laws derived through reason from human nature.

Reason is objective I hope we'll both agree.
Human nature is arguably less so. However most natural-law theorists I've read believe that it can be determined like we determine the nature of properties like steel.

I am not sure reason is objective.

I am not sure that human nature has determinable laws.

It starts with the premise that all individuals own their own person. This is a product of human nature.

This is a very shaky premise.

[velvet]

I am not sure reason is objective.

Is this based on certainty being an impossible determination or a more substantial criticism.

If it's the latter I would be interested in the argument.

I am not sure that human nature has determinable laws [...]

[Self-ownership] is a very shaky premise.

I'm not even sure that 'human nature' itself exists. Let alone that it has determinable laws.

I'm also a fan of empiricism so I tend to view self-ownership as a strong premise. I infer ownership from control. I'm not sure this is the correct topic to engage with the idea though. Or at least not as long as I'm not intending to use it as a basis to defend the NAP.

[Drlee]

The problem is not that I am not making any sufficiently long posts. It is that you refuse to understand what I am saying and you start inventing things and then attacking that strawman.

If you were genuinly interested, I might be bothered to explain it all over again, but most of your replies are either condacending or plain insulting.

Scared you did I. You are not the first one this forum has put to flight. Come back when you are ready to debate with adults.

[lucky]

This is the necessary path of human nature; to interfere with and cripple this process by using violence goes profoundly against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and prosperity.

Ha! So Rothbard was a utilitarian after all!

I do wonder how he thought one necessarily couldn't have "life" until we have anarchy. "Prosperity" is a relative term I guess, but "life"? People seem quite alive to me, already!

[Drlee]

Rothbard was an idiot. He was a racist. There is no such thing as an intellectual racist. He was a bell-curve fan-boy and generally pompous asshole. His hero Alisa Rosenbaum was even worse. These two personify the notion that you can fool some of the people all of the time.....all of the people some of the time....and jerk the rest of them off.

[RedPillAger]

The NAP only has legitimacy when given the force of law.

given that the NAP precludes the initiation of force, and that law is force, that doesn't make sense.

[RedPillAger]

Translation: you know that you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, yet you decline, merely on that account, to reconsider your proved-false views.

you're free to interpret however you wish, of course. i'm not the one that is intimidated by people being free.

speaking of freedom, why is it that some of you champion freedom when it comes to using other people's land and defining property, but do not elsewhere? this is the kind of contradiction i'm speaking of.

[Nunt]

Scared you did I. You are not the first one this forum has put to flight. Come back when you are ready to debate with adults.

A fine example of adult discussion right here:

Rothbard was an idiot. He was a racist. There is no such thing as an intellectual racist. He was a bell-curve fan-boy and generally pompous asshole. His hero Alisa Rosenbaum was even worse. These two personify the notion that you can fool some of the people all of the time.....all of the people some of the time....and jerk the rest of them off.

[Nunt]

I'm not a supporter of natural law before we begin this. But it's nice being able to put those law modules I take to use:

It's generally defined as universal laws derived through reason from human nature.

Reason is objective I hope we'll both agree.
Human nature is arguably less so. However most natural-law theorists I've read believe that it can be determined like we determine the nature of properties like steel.

It starts with the premise that all individuals own their own person. This is a product of human nature.
It then derives multiple multiple principals from this (right to free speech, right to private-property).
These principals are combined in the NAP.

Here's Rothbard's argument:

[list][T]he nature of man is such that each individual person must, in order to act, choose his own ends and employ his own means in order to attain them. Possessing no automatic instincts, each man must learn about himself and the world, use his mind to select values, learn about cause and effect, and act purposively to maintain himself and advance his life. Since men can think, feel, evaluate, and act only as individuals, it becomes vitally necessary for each man’s survival and prosperity that he be free to learn, choose, develop his faculties, and act upon his knowledge and values. This is the necessary path of human nature; to interfere with and cripple this process by using violence goes profoundly against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and prosperity. Violent interference with a man’s learning and choices is therefore profoundly ‘antihuman’; it violates the natural law of man’s needs.
I'll add that I disagree with this argument on a number of levels - Is-Ought problem, presumes free will, etc. - so I won't be so inclined to engage with the criticisms you might propose in response before you do.

Thank you for the clarification. However I don't really subscribe in the "natural" part in natural law. I think that Rothbard takes on too big a task when he sets out to define something as natural. Does natural really exist? How can we know that something is natural? This just seems to difficult and not really necessary. I am willing to accept that my ideology is based on my subjective beliefs, not something that is predetermined by human nature.