How Taxation is Not Theft

[shirgall]

Why? Your options in life are limited all the time, sometimes much more than other times. Why is coercion the breaking point that makes the choice illusory? Is the fact that my biology limits my option to drink bleach for breakfast mean my choice for breakfast is illusory? If that biological threat doesn't invalidate my choice, why then does a human threat?

 

Because only persons can coerce.

[Natalia]

However, if you're renting, you're under the threat of "pay your landlord or go to jail" just as much as you're under the threat of "pay your tax collector or go to jail". As I said a couple times already, the only difference I'm seeing is that there are more competing landlords than competing nations. So while you have more options in rents and employment, it's not voluntary for most people by any means. Landlordism is very much a microcosm of statism.

Hello Thomas,

 

I would like to start by pointing out you have a good argument. That being said, the fundamental difference that you are missing between a state and a landlord (or the owner of any private property) is the method of acquisition of said property. A landlord does not initiate force in order to acquire his property; the state, by nature, does. A landlord would also most likely be willing to sell his property for enough money, while there is no such thing as becoming a billionaire to buy Rhode Island and make it your own country separated from the USA, for example. States have different motives to wish to keep their territory than a person or company does. Rent is voluntary, inasmuch as you have the option to acquire land peacefully and not have to pay taxes, but you do not have the option to acquire a country and not pay taxes. Keep in mind also that positive rights cannot exist concomitant with the NAP.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Because only persons can coerce.

Only persons can coerce you of their own volition, sure. But why does coercion make your choice illusory in the first place? Is it not merely because of the reducing of your options? And can't that reduction be done by non-persons?

[shirgall]

Only persons can coerce you of their own volition, sure. But why does coercion make your choice illusory in the first place? Is it not merely because of the reducing of your options? And can't that reduction be done by non-persons?

 

Reduction of options by initiating force is the issue. Why are we talking about nature in a thread about taxes?

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Reduction of options by initiating force is the issue. Why are we talking about nature in a thread about taxes?

The discussed devolved into terminology because my arguments weren't being addressed due to definition disagreements. It was said that choice is illusory in the face of this "reduction of options by initiating force," and I was wondering why the choice wasn't illusory in the face of options reduction from natural causes.

 

My original argument is that you do have a choice, just limited to varying degrees. So to say you don't have the choice to not pay taxes isn't accurate.

[AncapFTW]

Only persons can coerce you of their own volition, sure. But why does coercion make your choice illusory in the first place? Is it not merely because of the reducing of your options? And can't that reduction be done by non-persons?

Nature is the way things are without interference by intelligent beings.  If you don't like the way something is in nature, then find a way to work around it.  Something being a certain way because it's natural and something being a certain way because an intelligent being made it that way are completely different.

 

You can be killed by a lightning bolt, but if I put you in an electric chair and electrocuted you it would be murder, whereas being struck by a lightning bolt is just an accident.  That's the difference.

[shirgall]

So to say you don't have the choice to not pay taxes isn't accurate.

 

Tell that to Irwin Schiff (RIP).

[dsayers]

So to say you don't have the choice to not pay taxes isn't accurate.

"Pay your taxes... or we'll come steal from you, cage you, and escalate up to the point of killing you, with perceived legitimacy to all of society," says the State. You are not free to decline and therefore it is not voluntary. Choosing between which make of car runs you over is not the same as choosing to not be run over. Taco Bell doesn't get to say to me, "Do you want a taco or burrito for this dollar we are taking from you?" Because I'm free to not patronize them, this is how you know that when I do, it is voluntary.

[ObserveandReport]

Then you would be serving no purpose attempting to convince me otherwise

Hah, 

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Tell that to Irwin Schiff (RIP).

I would have. Are you implying that if a choice results in prison time that it's not a choice? You just took the discussion back a few steps, back to the "coercion makes choice illusory".

 

Nature is the way things are without interference by intelligent beings.  If you don't like the way something is in nature, then find a way to work around it.  Something being a certain way because it's natural and something being a certain way because an intelligent being made it that way are completely different.

 

You can be killed by a lightning bolt, but if I put you in an electric chair and electrocuted you it would be murder, whereas being struck by a lightning bolt is just an accident.  That's the difference.

I understand that difference, but how does that change whether something is voluntary or not? Why is it not considered involuntary when people make decisions while limited by natural forces?

 

Choosing between which make of car runs you over is not the same as choosing to not be run over.

I agree, that's my point. The choice between one landlord and another is not voluntary. If possible, people should be able to choose not to rent (as assured by Lockean Proviso). Is that not the most voluntary of situations?

 

Taco Bell doesn't get to say to me, "Do you want a taco or burrito for this dollar we are taking from you?" Because I'm free to not patronize them, this is how you know that when I do, it is voluntary.

Nope, it still has the same involuntary elements. You have the option to leave the nation and not patronize the state too, it's merely a bit more difficult to do than go across the street to McDonalds. There are more food options, but you still have to purchase food somewhere. Trying to obtain ownership of land, and the time to make your own, is comparable to leaving the nation.

 

But as I asked before, and you neglected to answer (as with most of the questions): if there were simply more nations with more fluid borders, would taxation become voluntary? Because if not, you  certainly cannot point to the various options in the market and pretend your choice is therefore voluntary.

[Natalia]

If possible, people should be able to choose not to rent

 

That's called buying your home. Or living with your parents or with a friend. If you live with a roommate you can halve your rent. Now explain to me how I can do the same with taxes.

 

But as I asked before, and you neglected to answer (as with most of the questions): if there were simply more nations with more fluid borders, would taxation become voluntary? Because if not, you certainly cannot point to the various options in the market and pretend your choice is therefore voluntary.

I answered that in my first post in this thread and less verbosely in my paragraph above.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

That being said, the fundamental difference that you are missing between a state and a landlord (or the owner of any private property) is the method of acquisition of said property. A landlord does not initiate force in order to acquire his property; the state, by nature, does.

I won't deny this could often be true, regardless of how vague I consider "the initiation of force" to be. However, I would say most land is owned by people whose property claim should be respected (i.e. they have not properly homesteaded it, or don't continue to homestead it). If someone throws a fence around 100 square acres, I consider their property claim to be aggressive. They're threatening people who use it without doing what I think they should to be just owners. I say this not to imply that I'm the sole individual who knows the proper definition and requirements for property, but rather that I am one of many individuals who have varying different positions on aggression and property that conflict with the sentiment that property owners today are non-aggressive. It becomes even worse then you talk about land in countries with more history of violent conquest like Europe. The bulk of land owners hardly got there by peaceful means.

 

 

Rent is voluntary, inasmuch as you have the option to acquire land peacefully and not have to pay taxes, but you do not have the option to acquire a country and not pay taxes. Keep in mind also that positive rights cannot exist concomitant with the NAP.

Good point. This is probably where the discussion should've gone from the beginning. While there are varying levels of wealth individual purchasing control, corporations purchasing oligopoly power, and governors gaining control of states (like a stand-in landlord, to be consistent with the comparison), I can agree that there's nothing really comparable to an individual to acquire land for themselves.

 

The ability to acquire/homestead land for yourself would indeed make the situation much more voluntary than taxation. But the more barriers preventing people from doing this, the less voluntary it becomes. This is why I mention libertarian's failure to address the Lockean Proviso in their policies. It's clear to me that there needs to be an adjustment of accepted property norms/laws in order to make property more libertarian. Just like we would define the requirements for homesteading (the amount/type of labor required to call land yours), I see a need to require a continuous reaffirming of that ownership. The indefinite absentee ownership model makes sure the Lockean Proviso is not met, and it makes sure that there isn't readily available land for people, thereby unnecessarily compelling them to rent from people amassing capital.

 

Keep in mind I don't really speak about voluntary/coercion in black/white terms. I consider everything to be varying levels of voluntary (or varying levels of involuntary if you see the cup as half empty).

That's called buying your home. Or living with your parents or with a friend. If you live with a roommate you can halve your rent. Now explain to me how I can do the same with taxes.

You're listing ways to manipulate and change the way you pay rents. There are likewise many ways to make life changes to change how your taxes are paid. Just like living with a roommate to halve your rent, you can work half as much as before and let your roommate pick up the other half. Then you've halved your income tax.

 

And on the extreme scale of things, you can manipulate the political system to gain favor, either by becoming a politician or a corporate head. This is clearly not simple/easy, but my argument was never that avoiding taxes is as easy as avoid rents.

[shirgall]

I would have. Are you implying that if a choice results in prison time that it's not a choice? You just took the discussion back a few steps, back to the "coercion makes choice illusory".

 

What kind of choices do you have in prison? If choosing to resist ends up with me not having any freedoms at all, how is that not an hollow choice?

[labmath2]

I don't think people are really adressing his point in a direct manner.

 

What difference does it make to the individual that governments own all land or that other people own all land? Isn't it practically identical since he will have to pick a landlord just like he would have to pick a government? If your objection is to the size of governments and the cost of changing countries, would countries the size of a state suffice?

 

There are two answers to those questions. The first is the moral answer which says even if the outcomes look practically identical, the process determines our perception of the outcome. An example is the person who breaks into a store in the middle of the night and takes a few items, but leaves the money for those items while leaving all else the same. Even though the outcome looks practically identical to a purchase, we would still consider the man immoral.

 

The second is that it isn't practically identical because the nature of the interactions are different. A landlord can evict me for not following his rules, but that is the extent of his coercive powers. Even if he knows i have a bag of cash in the house, he cannot demand to be paid at gunpoint. This affects the way we think about these interactions and the outcomes of these interactions. A landlord that can steal from his tenants has no incentive to kick them out. A landlord that can only kick out tenants has a lot more incentive to negotiate.

[EclecticIdealist]

Natural limitations vs Artificial limitations

 

Natural limitations are things which every person must contend with as they arise. Differences in physiology cause different limitations, as do different circumstances.

 

Artificial limitations, on the other hand, are imposed by volitional actors. In some cases, the artificial limitations are justifiable, as in the case of self-defense. In other cases, the artificial limitations are not justifiable, as in the case of robbery or rape. We can justly take exception to artificial limitations which restrain our liberty or choice on the basis that those imposing such limitations are not acting morally, that is to say, they are not acting in accordance with the commonly agreed upon rules governing human behavior in society in such a manner as negatively impacts oneself or others. In short, imposing artificial limitations upon others is immoral.

 

Now consider the difference between artificial limitations that are imposed by violence or the threat of violence (rape and robbery for example) and those which are mutually agreed upon by verbal or written contract as in the case of employment. In exchange for wages or salary and possibly other benefits, the employer requires the employee to arrive at work each day they are scheduled and work exclusively for and on behalf of the employer as directed by the employer or manager until a particular time (excluding breaks for rest, diversion, the consumption of food, etc.) The employee agrees with the contractual arrangement with the employer and thus agrees to be bound by the artificial constraints set by the employer, and the employer agrees to part with the money.

 

When it comes to taxation, taxes are clearly not a natural limitation on what a man may do with his property, they are an artificial limitation. Not only are they an artificial limitation, they are an artificial limitation that are imposed by the threat of violence. It does not matter that services may be rendered which are intended to compensate the person being taxed for their loss of liberty (as to what they may do with their property) any more than it would matter if a robber who stole your wallet also gave you a new pair of shoes. The actions were an involuntary artificial limitation that was imposed and as such are considered to be immoral and wrong.

 

The difference between Natural limitations and Involuntary Artificial limitations is that no moral judgment can properly be made about Naturally imposed limitations, but moral judgements can be made about the imposed Artificial limitations which are the result of coercion.  Nature does not coerce, it merely presents conditions which may or may not be changed through one's own volition or natural processes; Moral agents, on the other hand can coerce, they can issue credible threats of violence which coerce behavior through the creation of artificial limitations. It is improper to use the term coerce when referring to anything or anyone but moral agents.

[Natalia]

The ability to acquire/homestead land for yourself would indeed make the situation much more voluntary than taxation. But the more barriers preventing people from doing this, the less voluntary it becomes. This is why I mention libertarian's failure to address the Lockean Proviso in their policies. It's clear to me that there needs to be an adjustment of accepted property norms/laws in order to make property more libertarian. Just like we would define the requirements for homesteading (the amount/type of labor required to call land yours), I see a need to require a continuous reaffirming of that ownership. The indefinite absentee ownership model makes sure the Lockean Proviso is not met, and it makes sure that there isn't readily available land for people, thereby unnecessarily compelling them to rent from people amassing capital.

I would be interested to see if anyone else here addresses this; I honestly don’t know much about that.

 

You're listing ways to manipulate and change the way you pay rents. There are likewise many ways to make life changes to change how your taxes are paid. Just like living with a roommate to halve your rent, you can work half as much as before and let your roommate pick up the other half. Then you've halved your income tax.

And nearly halved the income, since they can just both work full time. One person having two part time jobs would be a better example, but they’d still be coerced into paying taxes. Taxes are also embedded in everything you buy, as you know.

 

Buying your house costs money, sure, but it’s not at all the same thing as paying rent to a landlord, mainly because the house is now your property. There are benefits of renting instead of buying a house, but that’s not really relevant here.

 

And on the extreme scale of things, you can manipulate the political system to gain favor, either by becoming a politician or a corporate head. This is clearly not simple/easy, but my argument was never that avoiding taxes is as easy as avoid rents.

Not something one does to himself, like buying a house.

 

Now, I’m not really sure of what your point is; if I’m not mistaken, you’ve argued that both rent and taxes are voluntary, and that they aren’t.

 

What difference does it make to the individual that governments own all land or that other people own all land? Isn't it practically identical since he will have to pick a landlord just like he would have to pick a government?

 

I’m just a little girl and a novice to this board, so if there’s anything wrong with my premises or reasoning, I’d appreciate anyone to point out.

 

I don’t see how nations and private property can be compared like that. Firstly, as I’m pointing out for the third time ITT, people can avoid paying rent by simply buying their land, but they can’t avoid paying taxes by buying a country. They can try to create a stateless society, which is kind of the point of this whole board, but that’s not something an individual can do to himself, like buying a house; most of us live in democracies, in which individual will is subjugated by the collective, what, as dsayers often says, is comparable to gang rape.

 

Private property of land is fluid, people are often buying and selling land. That doesn’t happen with countries. Rulers change but they’re all influenced by special interests and the will of the mob, and that fundamentally doesn’t change in a democracy. Countries can cease to exist, merge or separate, but that’s very different from market transactions. Countries also have widely different reasons for wanting ownership of their land than individuals or companies do, if you think about it.

 

Any questions?

[labmath2]

I’m just a little girl and a novice to this board, so if there’s anything wrong with my premises or reasoning, I’d appreciate anyone to point out.

 

I don’t see how nations and private property can be compared like that. Firstly, as I’m pointing out for the third time ITT, people can avoid paying rent by simply buying their land, but they can’t avoid paying taxes by buying a country. They can try to create a stateless society, which is kind of the point of this whole board, but that’s not something an individual can do to himself, like buying a house; most of us live in democracies, in which individual will is subjugated by the collective, what, as dsayers often says, is comparable to gang rape.

 

Private property of land is fluid, people are often buying and selling land. That doesn’t happen with countries. Rulers change but they’re all influenced by special interests and the will of the mob, and that fundamentally doesn’t change in a democracy. Countries can cease to exist, merge or separate, but that’s very different from market transactions. Countries also have widely different reasons for wanting ownership of their land than individuals or companies do, if you think about it.

 

Any questions?

 

Sure people can buy land, but no one is obligated to sell to you. In fact i imagine if all land is currently owned, it would be in most people's interest to simply hold on to their land. So if you are the buyer or renter, the situation in theory appears quite similar (if all anyone will do is rent to you, you have no choice but to live somewhere).

 

Lets simplify this problem. Imagine you arrive on an island the size of Hawaii with a booming economy and employment opportunity. Everyone single piece of dirt on the island is owned and and each land owner sets up the rules on their land. You try buying land, but no one will sell to you, they only offer to rent to you. Would such a situation be immoral if they justly acquired the land? If a landowner owned half the island and implemented a democracy on his half, would that be immoral? Does the current state (the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time) automatically determine morality?

 

Maybe i completely missed your point.

[Natalia]

Sure people can buy land, but no one is obligated to sell to you. In fact i imagine if all land is currently owned, it would be in most people's interest to simply hold on to their land. So if you are the buyer or renter, the situation in theory appears quite similar (if all anyone will do is rent to you, you have no choice but to live somewhere).

 

Lets simplify this problem. Imagine you arrive on an island the size of Hawaii with a booming economy and employment opportunity. Everyone single piece of dirt on the island is owned and and each land owner sets up the rules on their land. You try buying land, but no one will sell to you, they only offer to rent to you. Would such a situation be immoral if they justly acquired the land? If a landowner owned half the island and implemented a democracy on his half, would that be immoral? Does the current state (the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time) [/size]automatically determine morality?

 

Maybe i completely missed your point.

Seems like nitpicking to me. As I said, residences are bought and sold very frequently. A house typically stays with one owner for more or less ten years, people have several reasons to want another house in different stages of life, it seems outlandish to me a situation in which people would be stuck to owning only one piece of land their whole lives. Do you have any reason to believe that's likely?

[shirgall]

The trend of home ownership is declining...

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-28/where-americas-runaway-inflation-hiding

[labmath2]

Seems like nitpicking to me. As I said, residences are bought and sold very frequently. A house typically stays with one owner for more or less ten years, people have several reasons to want another house in different stages of life, it seems outlandish to me a situation in which people would be stuck to owning only one piece of land their whole lives. Do you have any reason to believe that's likely?

This seems like an irrelevant point. Does the morality of ownership hinge on sales?

[jpahmad]

Landlords need tenants as much as tenants need landlords.  If a guy owns thousands of acres of land, he must maintain that land in order to keep ownership over it.  Otherwise, it reverts back to its natural state and anybody can claim it by mixing their labor with it.  In order to maintain land, one must do the labor themselves or pay someone else to do it for them.  They need money for this.  They get money by leasing the land.  

[Natalia]

This seems like an irrelevant point. Does the morality of ownership hinge on sales?

I addressed your question, which was “What difference does it make to the individual that governments own all land or that other people own all land?”

I believe I mentioned some of the differences in morality and outcome.

 

How would ownership, i.e. property, be immoral?

 

 

The trend of home ownership is declining...

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-28/where-americas-runaway-inflation-hiding

Yes, but that’s partially a choice. Young people in USA don’t have savings, because they are drowned in tens of thousands of dollars in student debt to pay a usually worthless degree. People are also marrying later or not at all, and that can make home acquisition seem not worth the hassle. The prices have gone up too, of course. You know more about that than I do. The point is that it’s not because all home owners in the world decided or would ever decide to group together and swear not to ever sell their land to anybody, as would be required in labmath's quite outlandish scenarios.

 

http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/young-people-can-afford-homes-they-just-dont-want-to-be-homeowners/

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/millennials-forever-renters/412165/

[dsayers]

The choice between one landlord and another is not voluntary. If possible, people should be able to choose not to rent

In your artificial catch all, the landlord is not renting.

 

You have the option to leave the nation

Begging the question and talking in circles.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

In your artificial catch all, the landlord is not renting.

And Obama isn't governed. What's your point?

Begging the question and talking in circles.

The only premise I'm asserting is your ability to leave the nation. And that's simply a fact you deny merely because leaving the nation is difficult. As if difficulty or mortal risk implies inability.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The only premise I'm asserting is your ability to leave the nation. And that's simply a fact you deny merely because leaving the nation is difficult. As if difficulty or mortal risk implies inability.

 

Not that it matters morally in this context whether you can leave the nation or not but you can't leave the nation. Leaving the state would mean you can go somewhere that the state claims no right to initiate force on you. But the state has no such barrier. Even if you go live in the stateless wilderness you'll probably be left alone. But the state still claims the right to follow you and rule you if they consider it necessary. Once an institution claims the right to initiate force then no one is free from that. 

[shirgall]

Yes, but that’s partially a choice. Young people in USA don’t have savings, because they are drowned in tens of thousands of dollars in student debt to pay a usually worthless degree. People are also marrying later or not at all, and that can make home acquisition seem not worth the hassle. The prices have gone up too, of course. You know more about that than I do. The point is that it’s not because all home owners in the world decided or would ever decide to group together and swear not to ever sell their land to anybody, as would be required in labmath's quite outlandish scenarios.

 

http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/young-people-can-afford-homes-they-just-dont-want-to-be-homeowners/

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/millennials-forever-renters/412165/

 

Wasn't much of a choice for me. I moved to where the jobs were, but I can't sell my old house (I tried, ended up renting it out) and as a result haven't really been able to buy a new one, so I'm renting here too. Year to year my rent just increased 10%.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Not that it matters morally in this context whether you can leave the nation or not but you can't leave the nation. Leaving the state would mean you can go somewhere that the state claims no right to initiate force on you. But the state has no such barrier. Even if you go live in the stateless wilderness you'll probably be left alone. But the state still claims the right to follow you and rule you if they consider it necessary. Once an institution claims the right to initiate force then no one is free from that.

If you flee into the woods of the landlord's property, how do you consider that leaving their property? Though even if you do leave, the landlord has right to follow you for a number of reasons (e.g. if you flee and avoid paying your back-rents). Then they have the legal right to use force (or get someone else to) which many would consider initiatory, but you only consider it initiation of violence when the state does it. The idea that the state is "initiating" violence is directly dependent on your belief that they don't have just claim over their nation. And many people have similar disagreement with much of the institution of landlordism and their claims.

[youzer]

Government = State

State owns the land.

People rent the land.

People = Government?

People own the land?

People pay themselves to rent the land they own?

[labmath2]

I addressed your question, which was “What difference does it make to the individual that governments own all land or that other people own all land?”

I believe I mentioned some of the differences in morality and outcome.

 

How would ownership, i.e. property, be immoral?

 

I went back and read your first post on this topic and while i agree with the claim of just acquisition, which is in my answer to the question, the rest of the post is not a valid counter argument to the position. Your insistence on arguing that their choice to sell or not has any bearing on the morality of their ownership is confusing to me. A government willing to sell you a plot of land does not make its claim valid and an individual or group of individuals unwilling to sell their plots of land does not make them immoral. 

 

 

Landlords need tenants as much as tenants need landlords.  If a guy owns thousands of acres of land, he must maintain that land in order to keep ownership over it.  Otherwise, it reverts back to its natural state and anybody can claim it by mixing their labor with it.  In order to maintain land, one must do the labor themselves or pay someone else to do it for them.  They need money for this.  They get money by leasing the land.  

 

This is not quite clear from what i understand about land ownership. Stefan has talked about individuals who are buying a piece of land to preserve it in its natural state.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

People = Government?

People own the land?

People pay themselves to rent the land they own?

No, some people own the land and charge the others to use it.

[youzer]

No, some people own the land and charge the others to use it.

Some people is still people.

[dsayers]

What's your point?

You: Everybody is forced to rent.

Me: Not everybody is forced to rent.

The point is to contradict you to reveal that your conclusion is provably false. A curious/honest person would welcome this as an opportunity to revise their conclusion to more accurately describe the real world.

 

The only premise I'm asserting is your ability to leave the nation. And that's simply a fact you deny merely because leaving the nation is difficult.

Difficulty has been YOUR offering. You will not find me ever having said such a thing, you curious/honest person, you. *I* accept that morality is determined NOT by way of difficulty. But by way of consent. Which is how speaking as if consent is assumed is begging the question... still.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

You: Everybody is forced to rent.

When did I said this? I'm perfectly willing to revise my positions, but this isn't one of my positions and it's therefore impossible to revise.

*I* accept that morality is determined NOT by way of difficulty. But by way of consent. Which is how speaking as if consent is assumed is begging the question... still.

I didn't assume consent. It's quite involuntary, and everything I have said has been, if any thing at all, under the assumption most things are involuntary and non-consensual.

 

You have the option to leave the nation and you have chose not to. You're the one assuming that all choice implies consent. And I already destroyed that nonsense.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If you flee into the woods of the landlord's property, how do you consider that leaving their property? Though even if you do leave, the landlord has right to follow you for a number of reasons (e.g. if you flee and avoid paying your back-rents). Then they have the legal right to use force (or get someone else to) which many would consider initiatory, but you only consider it initiation of violence when the state does it. The idea that the state is "initiating" violence is directly dependent on your belief that they don't have just claim over their nation. And many people have similar disagreement with much of the institution of landlordism and their claims.

 

The wilderness outside the given state area. The state claims the right to initiate force (which is not dependent on my belief but a demonstrable and admitted fact). So it doesn't matter where you go on the planet. You can't leave the state. 

 

Even if your already rebutted claims about landlords (you voluntarily contracted to pay the landlord, you were not forced to like you're forced to with the state) were true then it would still not change my argument. You can't leave the state. 

 

What "many people" would have is irrelevant. "Many people" are belligerently stupid retards too. So what? 

[Natalia]

Your insistence on arguing that their choice to sell or not has any bearing on the morality of their ownership is confusing to me. 

 

I never argued that that had any bearing on the morality. I just pointed out how that's an important difference between the state and private property, making the situation you proposed outlandish. And as I said, I think in my first post in this thread, private property isn't inherently acquired through force, unlike state control over a territory. I think you agree with me and are just misunderstanding.