That’s wrong and for the reasons I’ve already stated. — NOS4A2

What reasons? You've not stated any reasons why some are entitled to the products of their labour but others aren't. What are these distinguishing factors?

This is why sometimes people give up about taxes, justice, public administration, etc... because it looks like governments build the institutions just to help their own interests forgetting the interests of the population.
So... the institutions are not bad at all. It is the selfishness of governors that poison everything they touch.

I’m not so sure about that. Good people will do evil things just because the law tells them to. They are no longer acting as men, but as officials.

There are two ways by which one can acquire the means for his survival: through the products of his own labor or by appropriating the products and labor of others. I prefer the former and repudiate the latter. I don’t do this because some law tells me to, but because my conscience does. Therefor I afford him the right to his property, and will defend this right instead of violate it. If I wish to acquire his property I do so with common enterprise and free exchange rather than force and coercion.

So no, I do not think stolen property and plunder constitute rightful property and that one has a right to such property simply because he labored to steal it. After all, I’ve been railing against compulsion and appropriation this whole time.

Good people will do evil things just because the law tells them to. They are no longer acting as men, but as officials. — NOS4A2

Yes because they are brainwashed but fortunately we are not longer being ruled by a military system who forces you to make evil things. Yes we are officials but in not so bad issues inside the diaspore of time we were born. Imagine born in XV or XVI century and kill random people because a king told you just to plump his power.

Right. But I answered that. You're wrong. There are not two ways.

all "products of [one's] own labour" involve "appropriating the products and labor of others" - the field, the seed, the clean air, the good soil, the clean water, the open ground... All the products and labour of others. and that's just to grow a grain of wheat. Multiply that by a thousand for your computer, your fridge, your car... — Isaac

Ignoring it doesn't make the error go away.

Yes because they are brainwashed but fortunately we are not longer being ruled by a military system who forces you to make evil things. Yes we are officials but in not so bad issues inside the diaspore of time we were born. Imagine born in XV or XVI century and kill random people because a king told you just to plump his power.

True, we should make the distinction between violent tyranny and it’s softer variations. But I think it’s something we should be careful with.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote a prescient chapter in his book Democracy in America called “What Sort Of Despotism Democratic Nations Have To Fear”. He describes what he calls “soft despotism”. It’s worth a read and as valuable today as it was then:

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest—his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not—he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances—what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm#link2HCH0073

Yes, your argument was nonsensical. Toiling your own field, planting a seed, watering the seed, and using the sun to grow wheat for flour is somehow appropriating the product and labor of others. Few greater absurdities have been spoken.

Toiling your own field, planting a seed, watering the seed, and using the sun to grow wheat for flour is somehow appropriating the product and labor of others. — NOS4A2

Well then how did you acquire the field, if not from the common? By what means was the water kept clean, if not by the efforts of others upstream? By what means did you acquire the seed, if not from the common? How has the soil maintained sufficient fertility to grow your seed in if not by the efforts of those who have come before you? By what means is the air kept clean enough if not by the collective efforts of those other who share it?

And that's just one grain of wheat growing.

Now do that for the computer you're writing on.

The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.

As you said it was so worthy of read. Thank you for the recommendation of this article/extract from a book. Well this hardens what we are talking about in this thread. We are agree the system is flawed. But it looks like we don’t know what to change. In the Ancient Times they tried everything to establish a situation where the people can have the same opportunities and being useful inside the nation (I refer as nation because we clearly established that State is so different)
But I guess we just created a monster who is by us with zero empathy. We learn how to work and then pay the bills, but... what about happiness? Respecting each other? Ethics?
No! Because we still live in big villas where only the strongest/richest can govern. Everybody has no chance to be a ruler. Let’s be honest
If you look inside the government it is even scary. But... we do not have any system yet. So is this system or a military/religious one.

Exhorted obedience. That is the key of this. We are as obedient as in the ancient times but at least we are not getting in slavery or killed for someone with more power than us... (?)

Well then how did you acquire the field, if not from the common? By what means was the water kept clean, if not by the efforts of others upstream? By what means did you acquire the seed, if not from the common? How has the soil maintained sufficient fertility to grow your seed in if not by the efforts of those who have come before you? By what means is the air kept clean enough if not by the collective efforts of those other who share it?

And that's just one grain of wheat growing.

Now do that for the computer you're writing on.

I don’t get how asking these questions is supposed to lead me to your conclusion. They don’t. All of the above can be acquired without appropriation, through common enterprise and free trade rather than force and coercion, as I’ve already stated.

Toiling your own field, planting a seed, watering the seed, and using the sun to grow wheat for flour is somehow appropriating the product and labor of others. Few greater absurdities have been spoken. — NOS4A2

Depends on whether or not you can pay loan off on the tractor you couldn't afford in full, I guess. Technically many folks might be legally appropriating the product and labor of others through debt.
When the highly efficient firms come to price you out and your left with a mountain of debt, there will be no crying "force and coercion" as a consequence of free market action. Shit happens.

There will be no monolithic state to punish you for defaulting, just a mob of racketeers working for the transient emanation of their local government. Then you can just defend yourself with guns. Pow pow!

Depends on whether or not you can pay loan off on the tractor you couldn't afford in full, I guess. Technically many folks might be legally appropriating the product and labor of others through debt.
When the highly efficient firms come to price you out and your left with a mountain of debt, there will be no crying "force and coercion" as a consequence of free market action. Shit happens.

There will be no monolithic state to punish you for defaulting, just a mob of racketeers working for the transient emanation of their local government. Then you can just defend yourself with guns. Pow pow!

If that’s what I signed up for so be it. The point is I sign contracts, accept debt, and partner with others willingly and through my own free will, and suffer any risks thereby.

I don’t get how asking these questions is supposed to lead me to your conclusion. — NOS4A2

It's like you've never encountered the use of questions before. Do I really have to explain this to you?

"I've not been outside today" - "Then how come your boots are muddy?"
"I've never met her before" - "Then how come you have her phone number in your phone?"
"I don't know anything about that stolen painting" - "Then how come your fingerprints are on it?"

...

It's quite a normal method of enquiry. That you're baffled by it says more about you than the enquiry itself.

All of the above can be acquired without appropriation, through common enterprise and free trade rather than force and coercion, as I’ve already stated. — NOS4A2

Yeah. I don't know if you've noticed this in life, but just stating that something is the case does not constitute an argument. It tells us nothing at all of any shared use. This is a public forum. For discussion. It's not here to canvass opinion like some complex Gallup poll. Nobody cares if you think these things can be "acquired without appropriation, through common enterprise and free trade rather than force and coercion". The standard needs to be a bit higher than you just reckoning it. Hence the questions.

I'm asking you to demonstrate that it's the case, with examples. You know, like in a proper discussion.

I'm not asking because I want to double-check what you already think to complete my list of 'stuff NOS reckons'.

Yeah. I don't know if you've noticed this in life, but just stating that something is the case does not constitute an argument. It tells us nothing at all of any shared use. This is a public forum. For discussion. It's not here to canvass opinion like some complex Gallup poll. Nobody cares if you think these things can be "acquired without appropriation, through common enterprise and free trade rather than force and coercion". The standard needs to be a bit higher than you just reckoning it. Hence the questions.

I'm asking you to demonstrate that it's the case, with examples. You know, like in a proper discussion.

I'm not asking because I want to double-check what you already think to complete my list of 'stuff NOS reckons'.

I didn’t think such a simple, common-sense notion about the difference between stolen goods and goods acquired through work and effort would be so difficult for a brilliant thinker such as yourself. Alas, here we are.

Sorry, I refuse to demonstrate that one can acquire his property through means other than theft. And I would argue if you need such a thing demonstrated you’re probably not fit for this world.

Extolling the benefits of both common enterprise and private property...

A nice way of hedging one's bets, self-contradiction, or just plain insincerity...

The problem, of course, arises when conflicts arise between private and common interests. Which takes precedence/priority, the common or the private? The answer... the private. The proof... look no further than the pandemic response.

The answer... the private. The proof... look no further than the pandemic response. — creativesoul

Agree. Literally private and money preferences are taking advantage of other countries. Look at Israel he is paying to their own benefits and then they had a huge number of vaccines. Many European countries are negotiating with Russia trying to buy Sputnik instead of some consensus.
Pandemic showed us how selfish the government are.

I would argue if you need such a thing demonstrated you’re probably not fit for this world. — NOS4A2

Go on then.

So if I'm understanding you, if I were to move next door to you and built a lead smelting plant and spew toxic fumes into your yard, then in your ideal society there would be no legal mechanism for you to stop me from doing this.

Am I getting this correctly?

Yes. There are countless ways to deliberate and compromise that do not require legal intervention. Absent that I would have to relocate. And if you need laws to convince you to avoid spewing toxic fumes into your neighbor’s yard then maybe the society isn’t the problem.

Absent that I would have to relocate. — NOS4A2

And when a big polluting industry moves into town and starts polluting the entire town, then everyone would have to relocate to another town. And when multiple industries move into your state/province, then you can re-locate to another state/province.

Eventually you will run out of places to relocate. OK, maybe outer space, but even there pollution is a problem.

And if you need laws to convince you to avoid spewing toxic fumes into your neighbor’s yard then maybe the society isn’t the problem. — NOS4A2

In this imperfect world that we live in laws are required.

And when a big polluting industry moves into town and starts polluting the entire town, then everyone would have to relocate to another town. And when multiple industries move into your state/province, then you can re-locate to another state/province.

Eventually you will run out of places to relocate. OK, maybe outer space, but even there pollution is a problem.

Surely a solution to the problem exists outside of government intervention. Perhaps once we relocate we can innovate a cleaner and more cost-effective method and put our former neighbor out of business, without having to give more power and money to some intervening bureaucracy.

Governments are notoriously awful at managing the environment. In the city where I live, our sewage has been pumped into the sea for decades, for example. Our federal government ships much of our plastic to third-world countries.

When we believe the government will take care of these issues, we thereby hand over our responsibility, believing they will take care of it.

In this imperfect world that we live in laws are required.

I’m no anarchist, so I think some laws are a necessary evil. But the only laws required are the ones that defend human rights and limit state power.

You can't resolve this highly emotive issue. You either buy into the idea that we live in community and support it and consider tax a way to pay for civilization; or you take the view that we are free individuals and the state is in illegitimate oppressor that takes away our liberty and property. You have also raised a separate matter of how society determines who gets paid what amount for their work. Maybe this is a separate thread.

Well, I think I started a potentially good dialogue on that. After all, it seems to be the case that most of our taxpayer money goes into servicing the public in some way either through medical care or retirement programs or public infrastructure. I think the public usually wants what is being funded by the government and that seems to be a good consideration. Also, taxation doesn’t really make a particular individual less wealthy than another individual only because of taxes under most circumstances. So, it seems that taxation doesn’t disrupt the natural dominance hierarchy of our society that much at all either. So, I’m not entirely sure why people would use the strong language of calling it theft.

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.

A moral right to pre-tax can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.

Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft.

But the only laws required are the ones that defend human rights and limit state power

who makes the law, cheats. never forget it.

As @NOS4A2 previously said If a neighbor told us we need to make a compulsory contribution to their revenue we’d cry “Extortion!”. But when the government does it we call it “taxes”.

It is legal robbery, plain and simple.

As @Tom Storm also previously said:
I don't mind paying taxes. I live in a community.

“I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes


Here is the ethical debate about taxes. Which side you want choose? Here is the thread Taxes.

I agree with Justice Wendell Holmes.

That’s another good argument against taxation being theft that I haven’t thought about.

Even if the child was a legal adult and bought the console himself with the money that he earned, I think most people would not think that it would be theft if the father took the console as long as the child continues living under his roof. This is because the console can only provide utility for the child if that child also has access to electricity and the console would be worthless without the assistance that he is receiving from his father. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think this example clearly constitutes theft. Just because someone lives under someone else's roof, does not forfeit their right to their property.

They did, a long time ago. They came up with government. What alternative do you offer? — tim wood

As I said.