Property Rights Take a Hit

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We can get into an esoteric argument all day. I'm most concerned about what the law says, not some theory or philosophy.

Yes, but if the law is unjust then it needs to be repealed and done away with.

I'd agree. However, what is defined as just is what society determines or will determine to be just, not what a single individual thinks as so.

Yes, but if there was no discussion then how would an unjust law ever be proven to be so?

 

[Toro]

If I'm not paying rent then am I free to stop paying my taxes? Or would I be arrested and have my property confiscated? Not paying taxes on property constitutes anarchy?

No, you are not free to stop paying taxes. You are free in a democratic society to convince everyone else to stop paying taxes. If the people in a democracy agree with you, then you no longer have to pay taxes because the democratic polity will pass laws to stop paying taxes.

We will have anarchy because you cannot pick and choose which laws you will obey. All laws are a democratic compromise. More practically, someone has to pay the police and the armed forces and the courts and the public prosecutors and so on.

 

[Oddball]

I'd agree. However, what is defined as just is what society determines or will determine to be just, not what a single individual thinks as so.

"Society" determines this???

Where is this "society" guy, and how is he involved in rational thought as to what constitutes being "just"?

 

[Toro]

Yes, but if the law is unjust then it needs to be repealed and done away with.

I'd agree. However, what is defined as just is what society determines or will determine to be just, not what a single individual thinks as so.

Yes, but if there was no discussion then how would an unjust law ever be proven to be so?

Who said there should be no discussion? I am not saying you should not be allowed to state your views. I am saying I disagree with your views.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If I'm not paying rent then am I free to stop paying my taxes? Or would I be arrested and have my property confiscated? Not paying taxes on property constitutes anarchy?

No, you are not free to stop paying taxes. You are free in a democratic society to convince everyone else to stop paying taxes. If the people in a democracy agree with you, then you no longer have to pay taxes because the democratic polity will pass laws to stop paying taxes.

We will have anarchy because you cannot pick and choose which laws you will obey. All laws are a democratic compromise. More practically, someone has to pay the police and the armed forces and the courts and the public prosecutors and so on.

Well there you have it. If I am not free to stop paying taxes on my own property then how can it possibly be my property? Nobody has the right to expect me to pay a duty on my own property, it makes no sense. Therefore, I am clearly not the true owner of my property, otherwise the government could not expect me to pay a tax on it.

Disobeying unjust laws is not anarchy, it's simply refusing to submit to tyranny.

 

[Toro]

I'd agree. However, what is defined as just is what society determines or will determine to be just, not what a single individual thinks as so.

"Society" determines this???

Where is this "society" guy, and how is he involved in rational thought as to what constitutes being "just"?

The law is the foundation upon which civil society rests. Concepts of a civil society evolve over time. 200 years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to argue for slavery - real slavery, where people are captured and brought across the ocean against their freewill. Today, slavery is an abomination because the force of argument has convinced society that slavery is wrong. So I guess I lied. I do care about philosophy somewhat.

 

[Toro]

Well there you have it. If I am not free to stop paying taxes on my own property then how can it possibly be my property? Nobody has the right to expect me to pay a duty on my own property, it makes no sense. Therefore, I am clearly not the true owner of my property, otherwise the government could not expect me to pay a tax on it.

Disobeying unjust laws is not anarchy, it's simply refusing to submit to tyranny.

No it is not. Society puts all sorts of restrictions on your behavior and actions, not just on your economic actions. Simply because society puts restrictions on your behavior and actions does not mean you are a slave. You do not have the total right to do whatever you want with yourself or your property. Like I mentioned earlier, you do not have the right to make your living as a drug pusher. Does that make you a slave?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well there you have it. If I am not free to stop paying taxes on my own property then how can it possibly be my property? Nobody has the right to expect me to pay a duty on my own property, it makes no sense. Therefore, I am clearly not the true owner of my property, otherwise the government could not expect me to pay a tax on it.

Disobeying unjust laws is not anarchy, it's simply refusing to submit to tyranny.

No it is not. Society puts all sorts of restrictions on your behavior and actions, not just on your economic actions. Simply because society puts restrictions on your behavior and actions does not mean you are a slave. You do not have the total right to do whatever you want with yourself or your property. Like I mentioned earlier, you do not have the right to make your living as a drug pusher. Does that make you a slave?

I don't feel that the government has the right to tell me what I can do to my own body either. However, I would say it is their own policies of prohibition that create the drug pushers.

 

[Oddball]

I'd agree. However, what is defined as just is what society determines or will determine to be just, not what a single individual thinks as so.

"Society" determines this???

Where is this "society" guy, and how is he involved in rational thought as to what constitutes being "just"?

The law is the foundation upon which civil society rests. Concepts of a civil society evolve over time. 200 years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to argue for slavery - real slavery, where people are captured and brought across the ocean against their freewill. Today, slavery is an abomination because the force of argument has convinced society that slavery is wrong. So I guess I lied. I do care about philosophy somewhat.

Fine.

Who says that the "society" that you presently approve of is any more just than the supposedly unjust one from which it evolved??

From where I sit, you're applauding the abolition of one brand of indentured servitude while rationalizing another brand of serfdom.

 

[Toro]

I don't feel that the government has the right to tell me what I can do to my own body either. However, I would say it is their own policies of prohibition that create the drug pushers.

I don't disagree with you at all. You've been pretty consistent in your arguments and I would guess you would say there should be no laws against any prohibition against narcotics. But most conservatives would disagree with you I would imagine.

Even then, would you support making it legal to sell heroin to 13 year-olds? A couple hundred years ago, a 13 year-old was considered to be an adult. Girls were often married away and had babies in their own families at 13. Today, society deems 13 year-olds to be children. This is another example of society's shifting perceptions.

 

[Oddball]

No it is not. Society puts all sorts of restrictions on your behavior and actions, not just on your economic actions. Simply because society puts restrictions on your behavior and actions does not mean you are a slave. You do not have the total right to do whatever you want with yourself or your property. Like I mentioned earlier, you do not have the right to make your living as a drug pusher. Does that make you a slave?

When those actions don't proactively harm another or their property, who didn't sign up for the risks of the given activity, it certainly does make us all defacto chattel property of the state.

 

[Toro]

Fine.

Who says that the "society" that you presently approve of is any more just than the supposedly unjust one from which it evolved??

From where I sit, you're applauding the abolition of one brand of indentured servitude while rationalizing another brand of serfdom.

From my perch, you are idealizing a society that has never existed. I will let you and Agna get into such an esoteric debate.

As for today's society, I never stated any opinion about whether or not today is more just than the past. I merely stated that it has evolved based on society's views of justice. Of course, not everyone will agree, but that's democracy, isn't it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't feel that the government has the right to tell me what I can do to my own body either. However, I would say it is their own policies of prohibition that create the drug pushers.

I don't disagree with you at all. You've been pretty consistent in your arguments and I would guess you would say there should be no laws against any prohibition against narcotics. But most conservatives would disagree with you I would imagine.

Even then, would you support making it legal to sell heroin to 13 year-olds? A couple hundred years ago, a 13 year-old was considered to be an adult. Girls were often married away and had babies in their own families at 13. Today, society deems 13 year-olds to be children. This is another example of society's shifting perceptions.

No, I wouldn't support selling heroin to a 13 year old. I'd say if drugs were legalized then they would be highly regulated in the same vein as alcohol, so I doubt it would be legal to sell heroin to 13 year olds regardless.

 

[Toro]

When those actions don't proactively harm another or their property, who didn't sign up for the risks of the given activity, it certainly does make us all defacto chattel property of the state.

Right. So if your neighborhood determines that you cannot convert your property into a garbage dump or put up a sky-rise because it will hurt the value of everybody else's property, you fully support that, correct? After all, it is hurting someone else when you freely exercise your own volition on your property.

 

[elvis]

I have to agree with Kevin about the drugs and prostitution. but I don't know how a country can function without taxes. i just don't see why we need so many and why they are so high.

 

[Toro]

No, I wouldn't support selling heroin to a 13 year old. I'd say if drugs were legalized then they would be highly regulated in the same vein as alcohol, so I doubt it would be legal to sell heroin to 13 year olds regardless.

Why would you highly regulate the sale of alcohol or drugs? What business is it of yours who I buy heroin or cocaine from? Why shouldn't I be allowed to deal out of my home in an upscale leafy neighborhood, and have prostitution rings and crack whores coming in and out at all times of the day?

 

[Toro]

I have to agree with Kevin about the drugs and prostitution. but I don't know how a country can function without taxes. i just don't see why we need so many and why they are so high.

Well, that's a different argument, isn't it? I came from a high tax place to live in a low tax place and am happy that I did.

 

[elvis]

No, I wouldn't support selling heroin to a 13 year old. I'd say if drugs were legalized then they would be highly regulated in the same vein as alcohol, so I doubt it would be legal to sell heroin to 13 year olds regardless.

Why would you highly regulate the sale of alcohol or drugs? What business is it of yours who I buy heroin or cocaine from? Why shouldn't I be allowed to deal out of my home in an upscale leafy neighborhood, and have prostitution rings and crack whores coming in and out at all times of the day?

you should be able to. but children should not be included in these endeavors.

 

[Oddball]

Fine.

Who says that the "society" that you presently approve of is any more just than the supposedly unjust one from which it evolved??

From where I sit, you're applauding the abolition of one brand of indentured servitude while rationalizing another brand of serfdom.

From my perch, you are idealizing a society that has never existed. I will let you and Agna get into such an esoteric debate.

As for today's society, I never stated any opinion about whether or not today is more just than the past. I merely stated that it has evolved based on society's views of justice. Of course, not everyone will agree, but that's democracy, isn't it?

First of all, we're supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy.

Second of all, "society" doesn't exist in any objectively quantifiable sense, nor does "justice".

I could be a mob boss and spin the same bullshit story about how "society" knows what's good for it in paying up for my protection racket.

 

[elvis]

Fine.

Who says that the "society" that you presently approve of is any more just than the supposedly unjust one from which it evolved??

From where I sit, you're applauding the abolition of one brand of indentured servitude while rationalizing another brand of serfdom.

From my perch, you are idealizing a society that has never existed. I will let you and Agna get into such an esoteric debate.

As for today's society, I never stated any opinion about whether or not today is more just than the past. I merely stated that it has evolved based on society's views of justice. Of course, not everyone will agree, but that's democracy, isn't it?

First of all, we're supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy.

Second of all, "society" doesn't exist in any objectively quantifiable sense, nor does "justice".

I could be a mob boss and spin the same bullshit story about how "society" knows what's good for it in paying up for my protection racket.

which is how we have income tax, and I suspect, property tax.