The Tale of the Slave

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.[/quote]

Property becomes legitimate once society recognizes it as so, and is willing to enforce your claim of ownership. You’ve been told this before. There is no objective legitimacy in property or ownership.[/quote]

But there just happens to be a major problem when you establish a system that requires people to bust their ass to create wealth and yet do no recognize it as theirs whzen you do so. That seems to dampen their enthusiasm a bit.

Also, there is an obvious problem when private persons can neither steal nor enslave and yet governments can do so without legally.

62

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just a antother point.

The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.

Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.

Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.

[/quote]

Yeah, Proudhon is an idiot, and for your claim that private property is man made when even animals have territories and defend it vigorously is something that you better be able to back up.

[/quote]

Being territorial and having a “right” to a particular territory are different things. There is no police force of animals that will work to protect the ‘right’ of a smaller animal when a bigger animal decides to take over its territory.

Also, orion, I like how you and I do the war/abortion thing when it comes to wages/democracy. Liberals cry “War is murder, abortion is acceptable”, while conservatives cry “Abortion is murder, war is acceptable.”

Perhaps both underpaid workers and voters are slaves.[/quote]

That is not the same, because both abortions and war require human effort.

Taxes require force, employment is completely voluntary on both sides.

63

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Wrong, because todays land is not in the possession of the people who took it initially but buy people who paid for it with what even Proudhon would call “legitimate property”.
[/quote]

And? At what point did it become legitimate? If I take something from you by force but then sell it on…are the new owners legitimate?

I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.

And the property that has been purchased in recent history has been done so in accordance with a states laws. Including the assumption that the government can take it in some cases, and that the government can tax you on it.

[quote]orion wrote:
Irrelevant because land is almost irrelevant when it comes to the creation of value today. Over 90% of what people produce today is the result of their brains, hands and risk taking and it is still prohibitively taxed.
[/quote]

Yes. When it comes to value creation you are correct. However, when it comes to cost it is another story.

I pay as much in rental payments as I do in income taxes. Land is one of the biggest expenses to the common man. And I don’t live in a very fancy location, nor do I have a very fancy house.

If housing was free, or heavily subsidized…I would have an extra 30% after tax income to spend. That is HUGE. If I didn’t have to worry about paying rent I would be starting my own business.

I would support a system with very cheap housing that had no other welfare at all, and little to no taxes. A flat 5% Sales tax would be the max required.[/quote]

From an ethical point of view no form of land ownership is really justifiable except maybe homesteading. From a practical point of view it is next to to a nonissue when it comes to the taxation of the fruits of someones labor.

Now it might be that land ownership is heavily taxed, but that is not wealth creation but wealth destruction.

64

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Wrong, because todays land is not in the possession of the people who took it initially but buy people who paid for it with what even Proudhon would call “legitimate property”.
[/quote]

And? At what point did it become legitimate? If I take something from you by force but then sell it on…are the new owners legitimate?

I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.

And the property that has been purchased in recent history has been done so in accordance with a states laws. Including the assumption that the government can take it in some cases, and that the government can tax you on it.

[quote]orion wrote:
Irrelevant because land is almost irrelevant when it comes to the creation of value today. Over 90% of what people produce today is the result of their brains, hands and risk taking and it is still prohibitively taxed.
[/quote]

Yes. When it comes to value creation you are correct. However, when it comes to cost it is another story.

I pay as much in rental payments as I do in income taxes. Land is one of the biggest expenses to the common man. And I don’t live in a very fancy location, nor do I have a very fancy house.

If housing was free, or heavily subsidized…I would have an extra 30% after tax income to spend. That is HUGE. If I didn’t have to worry about paying rent I would be starting my own business.

I would support a system with very cheap housing that had no other welfare at all, and little to no taxes. A flat 5% Sales tax would be the max required.[/quote]

From an ethical point of view no form of land ownership is really justifiable except maybe homesteading. From a practical point of view it is next to to a nonissue when it comes to the taxation of the fruits of someones labor.

Now it might be that land ownership is heavily taxed, but that is not wealth creation but wealth destruction.
[/quote]

I think from a totally Libertarian stance , no one could disagree with you :slight_smile:

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Wrong, because todays land is not in the possession of the people who took it initially but buy people who paid for it with what even Proudhon would call “legitimate property”.
[/quote]

And? At what point did it become legitimate? If I take something from you by force but then sell it on…are the new owners legitimate?

I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.

And the property that has been purchased in recent history has been done so in accordance with a states laws. Including the assumption that the government can take it in some cases, and that the government can tax you on it.

[quote]orion wrote:
Irrelevant because land is almost irrelevant when it comes to the creation of value today. Over 90% of what people produce today is the result of their brains, hands and risk taking and it is still prohibitively taxed.
[/quote]

Yes. When it comes to value creation you are correct. However, when it comes to cost it is another story.

I pay as much in rental payments as I do in income taxes. Land is one of the biggest expenses to the common man. And I don’t live in a very fancy location, nor do I have a very fancy house.

If housing was free, or heavily subsidized…I would have an extra 30% after tax income to spend. That is HUGE. If I didn’t have to worry about paying rent I would be starting my own business.

I would support a system with very cheap housing that had no other welfare at all, and little to no taxes. A flat 5% Sales tax would be the max required.[/quote]

From an ethical point of view no form of land ownership is really justifiable except maybe homesteading. From a practical point of view it is next to to a nonissue when it comes to the taxation of the fruits of someones labor.

Now it might be that land ownership is heavily taxed, but that is not wealth creation but wealth destruction.
[/quote]

I think from a totally Libertarian stance , no one could disagree with you :)[/quote]

From a totally logical stance noone would disagree either that a resource that indeed cannot be produced and exists in a fixed amount (though the Dutch would probably beg to differ) and insofar has sort of a unique position among the factors of labor cannot really be used to wield a devastating blow against private property or libertarianism when its part in wealth creation is negligeable.

66

[quote]orion wrote:
But there just happens to be a major problem when you establish a system that requires people to bust their ass to create wealth and yet do no recognize it as theirs whzen you do so. That seems to dampen their enthusiasm a bit.

Also, there is an obvious problem when private persons can neither steal nor enslave and yet governments can do so without legally.

[/quote]

You’re not going to get disagreement from me, but that doesn’t change the fact that property is a law, created by men, and is therefore subject to the whims of society. I’m not saying this is necessarily a good thing. I’m saying it’s a reality.

67

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just a antother point.

The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.

Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.

Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.

[/quote]

Yeah, Proudhon is an idiot, and for your claim that private property is man made when even animals have territories and defend it vigorously is something that you better be able to back up.

[/quote]

Being territorial and having a “right” to a particular territory are different things. There is no police force of animals that will work to protect the ‘right’ of a smaller animal when a bigger animal decides to take over its territory.

Also, orion, I like how you and I do the war/abortion thing when it comes to wages/democracy. Liberals cry “War is murder, abortion is acceptable”, while conservatives cry “Abortion is murder, war is acceptable.”

Perhaps both underpaid workers and voters are slaves.[/quote]

That is not the same, because both abortions and war require human effort.

Taxes require force, employment is completely voluntary on both sides.
[/quote]

Hey look, a point. You missed it.

Also, rethought the first post of this thread - its stupid. The idea that a vote isn’t counted in a democracy unless its the “deciding vote” is nonsense. Even in the case of 51/49, no one can say whose vote it was that “decided” the victory.

Also, if you’re one of the 49, its equally nonsensical to cry that your vote “wasn’t counted” when it clearly was.

so the “slave” in number 9 of that list is in no way relevant to a voter in a democracy since each vote is actually counted, instead of being ignored “except in the case of a deadlock”.

68

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just a antother point.

The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.

Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.

Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.

[/quote]

Yeah, Proudhon is an idiot, and for your claim that private property is man made when even animals have territories and defend it vigorously is something that you better be able to back up.

[/quote]

Being territorial and having a “right” to a particular territory are different things. There is no police force of animals that will work to protect the ‘right’ of a smaller animal when a bigger animal decides to take over its territory.

Also, orion, I like how you and I do the war/abortion thing when it comes to wages/democracy. Liberals cry “War is murder, abortion is acceptable”, while conservatives cry “Abortion is murder, war is acceptable.”

Perhaps both underpaid workers and voters are slaves.[/quote]

That is not the same, because both abortions and war require human effort.

Taxes require force, employment is completely voluntary on both sides.
[/quote]

Hey look, a point. You missed it.

Also, rethought the first post of this thread - its stupid. The idea that a vote isn’t counted in a democracy unless its the “deciding vote” is nonsense. Even in the case of 51/49, no one can say whose vote it was that “decided” the victory.

Also, if you’re one of the 49, its equally nonsensical to cry that your vote “wasn’t counted” when it clearly was.

so the “slave” in number 9 of that list is in no way relevant to a voter in a democracy since each vote is actually counted, instead of being ignored “except in the case of a deadlock”.[/quote]

You missed the point.

The point is that you have no say in your own affairs UNLESS you are the deciding vote.

It is true that you are no more or less free than all the other slaves, but the fact that you are no worse off does not make for a free society but for a fair and equal plantation.

69

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just a antother point.

The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.

Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.

Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.

[/quote]

Yeah, Proudhon is an idiot, and for your claim that private property is man made when even animals have territories and defend it vigorously is something that you better be able to back up.

[/quote]

Being territorial and having a “right” to a particular territory are different things. There is no police force of animals that will work to protect the ‘right’ of a smaller animal when a bigger animal decides to take over its territory.

Also, orion, I like how you and I do the war/abortion thing when it comes to wages/democracy. Liberals cry “War is murder, abortion is acceptable”, while conservatives cry “Abortion is murder, war is acceptable.”

Perhaps both underpaid workers and voters are slaves.[/quote]

That is not the same, because both abortions and war require human effort.

Taxes require force, employment is completely voluntary on both sides.
[/quote]

Hey look, a point. You missed it.

Also, rethought the first post of this thread - its stupid. The idea that a vote isn’t counted in a democracy unless its the “deciding vote” is nonsense. Even in the case of 51/49, no one can say whose vote it was that “decided” the victory.

Also, if you’re one of the 49, its equally nonsensical to cry that your vote “wasn’t counted” when it clearly was.

so the “slave” in number 9 of that list is in no way relevant to a voter in a democracy since each vote is actually counted, instead of being ignored “except in the case of a deadlock”.[/quote]

You missed the point.

The point is that you have no say in your own affairs UNLESS you are the deciding vote.

It is true that you are no more or less free than all the other slaves, but the fact that you are no worse off does not make for a free society but for a fair and equal plantation.

[/quote]

But you DO have a say because your vote IS counted, even IF you aren’t part of the majority.

Again, if 100 people vote and the outcome is 51/49, whose vote was it that “decided” the outcome? Which individual of those 51 is the slave in example 9?

70

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just a antother point.

The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.

Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.

Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.

[/quote]

Yeah, Proudhon is an idiot, and for your claim that private property is man made when even animals have territories and defend it vigorously is something that you better be able to back up.

[/quote]

Being territorial and having a “right” to a particular territory are different things. There is no police force of animals that will work to protect the ‘right’ of a smaller animal when a bigger animal decides to take over its territory.

Also, orion, I like how you and I do the war/abortion thing when it comes to wages/democracy. Liberals cry “War is murder, abortion is acceptable”, while conservatives cry “Abortion is murder, war is acceptable.”

Perhaps both underpaid workers and voters are slaves.[/quote]

That is not the same, because both abortions and war require human effort.

Taxes require force, employment is completely voluntary on both sides.
[/quote]

Hey look, a point. You missed it.

Also, rethought the first post of this thread - its stupid. The idea that a vote isn’t counted in a democracy unless its the “deciding vote” is nonsense. Even in the case of 51/49, no one can say whose vote it was that “decided” the victory.

Also, if you’re one of the 49, its equally nonsensical to cry that your vote “wasn’t counted” when it clearly was.

so the “slave” in number 9 of that list is in no way relevant to a voter in a democracy since each vote is actually counted, instead of being ignored “except in the case of a deadlock”.[/quote]

You missed the point.

The point is that you have no say in your own affairs UNLESS you are the deciding vote.

It is true that you are no more or less free than all the other slaves, but the fact that you are no worse off does not make for a free society but for a fair and equal plantation.

[/quote]

But you DO have a say because your vote IS counted, even IF you aren’t part of the majority.

Again, if 100 people vote and the outcome is 51/49, whose vote was it that “decided” the outcome? Which individual of those 51 is the slave in example 9?[/quote]

What does it matter?

From your point of view the situation never changes, it does not matter who casts what vote in what order, your vote is irrelevant unless it breaks a tie.

You are looking at this from the outcome of the vote perspective but the whole idea is to look at it from the point of self-determination, which incidentally is the mark of a free man.

71

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just a antother point.

The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.

Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.

Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.

[/quote]

Yeah, Proudhon is an idiot, and for your claim that private property is man made when even animals have territories and defend it vigorously is something that you better be able to back up.

[/quote]

Being territorial and having a “right” to a particular territory are different things. There is no police force of animals that will work to protect the ‘right’ of a smaller animal when a bigger animal decides to take over its territory.

Also, orion, I like how you and I do the war/abortion thing when it comes to wages/democracy. Liberals cry “War is murder, abortion is acceptable”, while conservatives cry “Abortion is murder, war is acceptable.”

Perhaps both underpaid workers and voters are slaves.[/quote]

That is not the same, because both abortions and war require human effort.

Taxes require force, employment is completely voluntary on both sides.
[/quote]

Hey look, a point. You missed it.

Also, rethought the first post of this thread - its stupid. The idea that a vote isn’t counted in a democracy unless its the “deciding vote” is nonsense. Even in the case of 51/49, no one can say whose vote it was that “decided” the victory.

Also, if you’re one of the 49, its equally nonsensical to cry that your vote “wasn’t counted” when it clearly was.

so the “slave” in number 9 of that list is in no way relevant to a voter in a democracy since each vote is actually counted, instead of being ignored “except in the case of a deadlock”.[/quote]

You missed the point.

The point is that you have no say in your own affairs UNLESS you are the deciding vote.

It is true that you are no more or less free than all the other slaves, but the fact that you are no worse off does not make for a free society but for a fair and equal plantation.

[/quote]

But you DO have a say because your vote IS counted, even IF you aren’t part of the majority.

Again, if 100 people vote and the outcome is 51/49, whose vote was it that “decided” the outcome? Which individual of those 51 is the slave in example 9?[/quote]

What does it matter?

From your point of view the situation never changes, it does not matter who casts what vote in what order, your vote is irrelevant unless it breaks a tie.

You are looking at this from the outcome of the vote perspective but the whole idea is to look at it from the point of self-determination, which incidentally is the mark of a free man.

[/quote]

Ok, I see what you’re saying.

72

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Democracy is just a pretty decent master. A better one than libertarianism.[/quote]

Libertarianism, in theory, is smaller government. Government has no purpose than to do what citizens cannot do on their own. Any further uses of the government and you can be sure that your not benefiting, your getting taken advantage of - that is simple human nature. Everybody is looking out for themselves and the government is not any different, it just so happens that the people are often times too fucking stupid to look out for their own interests so it gives the government open season to slowly consolidate power - at your cost(not that it is likely they are just malicious, it just so happens the path to their getting more and more power comes at your expense).