[ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae...

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Feb 13, 2008 2:53 PM, Tom Tobin <korpios at korpios.com> wrote:
> >
> > ### Taxes mean you are forcibly deprived of the resources you could
> > use to attain your goals - obviously, right?
>
> Err, no, not "obviously" at all.  Leaving my society is always an
> option; taxes happen to be part of the ruleset of this society, same
> as any corporation-state might impose.  If I really want to leave, I
> can; I had better not try to come back, of course.

### Well, yeah, like running away from slavery. Saying that "it's just
the way things are done here" doesn't make it right, you know? And why
should *I* leave? Did I do something wrong? If somebody doesn't like
the lack of "free" healthcare, they can leave anytime.

Violence is wrong no matter if you call yourself a state or a
corporation, no matter if there are "laws" that say otherwise.

-----------------------------------------------
>
> > There is only
> > a difference of degree, since a slave is wholly owned, while I am
> > owned only during about 40% of the time I spend working for money.
>
> You're "owned"?  Really?  Your boss can kill you with impunity?

### Well, yes. Have you ever tried not paying your taxes, and
resisting a visit from IRS agents (they are armed)? Any resistance
would end up with the resister ruined, and any serious resistance
would end with him dead, while some goons would be getting a bonus for
offing him.

---------------------------------------

>
> > I
> > wonder what would you say about taxes if they took not 20% but 80% of
> > your income? You presumably wouldn't be able to afford your laptop,
> > among other things. Would that change your POV?
>
> From my point of view, if all my basic needs are taken care of, and
> I'm not looking to obtain anything else (like ::cough:: children,
> which I remain convinced are the ultimate luxury items), I damned well
> could afford that laptop, that cellphone, and connectivity.  And I'd
> be perfectly content, since that's *all I'd need*.

### I would disagree with the assessment of children as luxury items.
If you want to have your "basic needs" taken care of in about 30 - 40
years, children are a necessity.

Are you honestly telling me you would be happy with losing 80% of your
current income while having to work just as mucht? That's strange.

---------------------------
>
> > In general, since as you say you are not interested in making money on
> > your own, I am surprised you show interest in monies belonging to
> > others. If you really don't care about money, don't ask (or force)
> > others to give it to you.
>
> Money is a product, one of the glues, of society; it doesn't have any
> value on its own.  I don't why libertarians haven't figured out that
> the only way they can obtain resources as efficiently as they do is
> because we have a framework to do it with.  (Don't get me started on
> the joke of "natural rights", either.)  ^_^

### I don't understand your paragraph. BTW, I am not a natural rights
libertarian, except in the most roundabout and indirect way.

--------------------------
>
> > As an aside, this public roads argument is an old canard - of course
> > you don't need taxes to have excellent, widely accessible roads. The
> > theory and practice of non-state road ownership are/were
> > well-established. If you think that your taxes efficiently accomplish
> > many of the things you appreciate, you may be a victim of political
> > salesmanship.
>
> What I meant is this: under, say, an anarcho-capitalism scheme, I
> could own a piece of land which is then surrounded by land owned by a
> malicious entity.  Said entity won't let me cross its land.  How do I
> get out?  A libertarian would claim that the entity was completely
> within its rights to restrict me from crossing, and perhaps even to
> attack me if I tried.

### Yes, if you trespassed. Other ancaps would ask, "So why did you
buy this land if you know it's surrounded by a malicious entity? Why
didn't you make sure you have rights of way to the nearest roads you
are subscriber of?" If the entity was not too large you could perhaps
call some mercenaries to help you fight your way out and next time you
buy land you would be more cautious.

And, actually, the same thought experiment can be directly used in
favor of anarchocapitalism: Imagine you are minding your own business,
living quietly somewhere in Germany, Turkey, or Spain. One day the
huge malicious entity you have been feeding with your taxes all your
life decides you need to be killed, because you are Jewish, Armenian,
or Jewish, or whatever. Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Since
the entity is definitely much larger than whatever could have
surrounded you in Ancapistan, you can't run. No mercenaries to do your
bidding, all were hired by the entity or killed already. And at least
in Ancapistan you could hang tough under siege, since the entity would
be breaking the law if it invaded your land, and you'd still have your
cell phone, maybe you could pay for airmail delivery of stuff. But
there in Govtland, they just send in some Gestapo and a body disposal
van.

Rafal