A rational proof that taxation is theft.

[Colonel J]

A rational proof being that the conclusion is undoubtedly true given that all the premises are also all true.

I feel having one of these would do wonders for conversation. Understanding that taxation is theft would be a kind of intelligence test of the common man before discussing politics, government, economics, etc.

What spawned my idea for this rational proof was the caller Stefan had in their recent Facism video where the caller refused to accept that taxation is theft.

Even if you can convince people that taxation is maintained through the use of force, they, as a last resort, generally respond with "well it IS theft... but it technically isn't because of XYZ."

While it should be simple enough to understand the definition of theft, other's require... much much more convincing.

Has any ever been made before?

[M.2]

I have been pondering over this exact same issue, and I am one of those people who haven't been convined yet. Even though I have read both of the Anarchy books and UPB, ans have been following FDR for a long time.

Would you be interested in having a discussion over the topic either here or over messaging?

[lorry]

Ok, but if taxation is maintained by force, then what about those people for whom taxation results in such overwhelming benefit that their taxation does not need to be maintained by force. If taxation is then to be theft, ie, by force, then you have to redefine taxation to mean two different things for two different sets of people.

Like, I receive in tax benefit $10000000 and I am taxed $0.01. Given that my benefit is conditional upon taxation do I not prefer to be taxed? And if I prefer to be taxed, taxation can't be theft because theft is always not preferred.

But that isn't to say that for the overwhelming majority of people taxation wouldn't be theft because it is non preferred, but in the above case? No, right?

It does seem to me as those taxation can not be theft in the framework of a behavior because it is not a universally non preferable behavior. I don't think you can break taxation into the part of taking without making account for the possibility of the receiving of benefit.

I think what I have just done is redefine taxation? I just checked wikipedia and it defines...

Quote

A tax (from the Latin taxo) is a mandatory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or other legal entity) by a governmental organization in order to fund various public expenditures

(devils advocate)

[shirgall]

Theft is not based on preference but consent. For taxation not to be theft, only those who vote for a tax should be obligated to pay for it. That people prefer to pay a tax rather than be shot resisting arrest doesn't make it consensual.

[Tyler H]

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

 

[Matty Rose]

Theft: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Theft

"A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent."

Did you consent to your money being forcefully taken from you by the government?

Did you offer it up voluntarily with your full and express consent?

If not, then it's theft.

Rational proof provided.

[lorry]

10 hours ago, shirgall said:

Theft is not based on preference but consent. For taxation not to be theft, only those who vote for a tax should be obligated to pay for it. That people prefer to pay a tax rather than be shot resisting arrest doesn't make it consensual.

I don't think theft is (morally) based on consent because consent is a function of preference. If I consent to some action then the consent is the communication of my preference.

Consider that I'm unconscious and dying and a passing Dr needs to cut a hole in my neck with a penknife for me to live. I can't give consent, therefore it is assault? But it goes that it is assumed that if I could give consent to the Dr I would, presumably because the consent communicates my preference to live.

My point is that the act of taxation, taken in isolation from the frame of reference of someone preferring the end result of said taxation, which is the say the benefits of taxation, can't be called theft because taxation for that person is preferable and theft, by definition, is (universally) not preferable.

This is why a lot of people can't accept that tax is theft, because they experience taxation as preferable to non taxation.

[shirgall]

Consent cannot be given under duress. Consent is active, not passive. Consent requires an individual who is conscious of giving consent and its consequences. Consent can be withdrawn. These elements are far stronger than a communicated preference.

[lorry]

18 minutes ago, shirgall said:

Consent cannot be given under duress. Consent is active, not passive. Consent requires an individual who is conscious of giving consent and its consequences. Consent can be withdrawn. These elements are far stronger than a communicated preference.

If duress does not effect the outcome of the choice, ie, I make the exactly the same decision if a gun is at my head as I do when the gun isn't at my head then the duress does not exist.

[Tyler H]

1 hour ago, lorry said:

If duress does not effect the outcome of the choice, ie, I make the exactly the same decision if a gun is at my head as I do when the gun isn't at my head then the duress does not exist.

Then the gun is an unnecessary overhead. It's not there for those who consent. The introduction of the gun into the equation is proof that consent has not been given. 

[lorry]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

Then the gun is an unnecessary overhead. It's not there for those who consent. The introduction of the gun into the equation is proof that consent has not been given. 

 

Yeah, but inefficiency isn't immoral.

 

I think the point is that I've isolated the frame of reference of the person benefiting from taxation and you can't do that because those tax dollars are coming from someone (who is probably not preferring to be taxed!) So you have to drive home the existence of this person, ie, against me rhetoric. But then you also can't just look at taxation from the frame of reference of the person for whom taxation is not preferred, for whom the experience must be that of theft, and call it all theft.

[shirgall]

4 hours ago, lorry said:

If duress does not effect the outcome of the choice, ie, I make the exactly the same decision if a gun is at my head as I do when the gun isn't at my head then the duress does not exist.

Only if you always make the same decision in every case, and even then that only makes duress not exist for your decisions. If duress doesn't exist, why did our ancestors coin a word for "threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment." Sure, there are studies that show that people go along with taxes if they think someone is going to get shafted worse, and there are others who want to loot or mooch their way for life, and there are yet others who feel that if you play the game of voting you automatically consent to the decision of the plurality, but none of those things overrules the existence of a lack of consent for some of those who are taxed.

Instead we should recognize that borders, standing armies, legislation but plurality, and the like the necessarily evils that must always be overseen, constricted, limited, and questioned. If I believes that this was still being done I might grudgingly consent to being taxed, but I still would not expect to tax those who do not consent.

[Boss]

I think its important to remind people that this system will 100% fail(http://www.usdebtclock.org/). Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." The underlying problem, however, is Taxation is theft.

Taxation is theft! and it needs to be the battle cry when this system fails. Or else it will be repeated. 

However, I think I know why some people can't resonate. Here is a question that may help.

If a large 1,000 member gang robs your house, and says im going to start taking 50% of your paycheck every week, what would you do?
 

[shirgall]

30 minutes ago, Boss said:

If a large 1,000 member gang robs your house, and says im going to start taking 50% of your paycheck every week, what would you do?

Only 3% of the population of the colonies took up arms against the greatest Army and Navy in the world... and won their freedom for a brief while.

[M.2]

People seem to have really strong opinions on tax around here. Whenever I hear an absolutist statement, I always look to poke holes in it, as most do. 

Is the tax that the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg take of its residents theft? The Grand-Duke owns all of the land of Luxembourg, and so I would think one has every right to demand payment from those who use his property. Also, there is every reason to believe that the people of the country are in full consent to the tax, because were they not, they could very easily  move to Monaco a few miles away, where there is absolutely no tax. Where am I going astray here? (Same goes for most other monarchies by the way. I just picked Luxembourg because it is close to my heart.)

Somebody please explain...

[Siegfried von Walheim]

28 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

People seem to have really strong opinions on tax around here. Whenever I hear an absolutist statement, I always look to poke holes in it, as most do. 

Is the tax that the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg take of its residents theft? The Grand-Duke owns all of the land of Luxembourg, and so I would think one has every right to demand payment from those who use his property. Also, there is every reason to believe that the people of the country are in full consent to the tax, because were they not, they could very easily  move to Monaco a few miles away, where there is absolutely no tax. Where am I going astray here? (Same goes for most other monarchies by the way. I just picked Luxembourg because it is close to my heart.)

Somebody please explain...

I cannot comment in detail about the laws of Luxembourg nor Monaco, but I can say if the Grand Duke is the legal owner of all Luxembourg then he is in the right to collect rent from his citizens. Even if his hereditary ownership came about through force, all fortunes are made virtuous through time. Most governments however do not have moral ownership as the people born onto those lands are unable to consent towards paying taxes and following the laws for force would be enacted against them if they refused. 

There cannot be consent when force is involved.

While Luxembourg may be an example of a gigantic privately own land (I'll take your word for the sake of argument that it is), most countries are not and most countries do not allow negotiation on the part of "tenants" to barter for individual rights unless it involves having less of them.

To clarify, in a landlord scenario, the tenants should be able to barter with their landlord for a re-negotiating of terms, and children should not be born into debt nor duties imposed by those that came before them. I cannot choose to not pay taxes without be arrested or deported and/or having all my property (what little I have) confiscated as "punishment".

If Luxembourg is basically a gigantic privately owned land operating based on the libertarian values of the NAP and, in relation to children, not binding those too young to consent to contracts made in their name, then it is not equivocal to 99% of the worlds' governments who collect tax (not rent) based on violating individual property rights as well as demanding children be obligated towards making due on contracts supposedly agreed to by a voting public (which itself violates the property rights of the "minority") decades in advance. 

[WorBlux]

18 hours ago, MattR said:

Theft: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Theft

"A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent."

Did you consent to your money being forcefully taken from you by the government?

Did you offer it up voluntarily with your full and express consent?

If not, then it's theft.

Rational proof provided.

Actually the statutory definition is more along the lines of; Whoever without lawful authority takes property belonging to another with the intent to deprive the owner of such property, shall be guilty of theft, a class X misdanear punishable by public flogging.  The only factual difference is that the men and women calling themselves "government"  have given themselves permission to perform the same acts to the same people as criminals do.

[WorBlux]

54 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

People seem to have really strong opinions on tax around here. Whenever I hear an absolutist statement, I always look to poke holes in it, as most do. 

Is the tax that the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg take of its residents theft? The Grand-Duke owns all of the land of Luxembourg, and so I would think one has every right to demand payment from those who use his property. Also, there is every reason to believe that the people of the country are in full consent to the tax, because were they not, they could very easily  move to Monaco a few miles away, where there is absolutely no tax. Where am I going astray here? (Same goes for most other monarchies by the way. I just picked Luxembourg because it is close to my heart.)

Somebody please explain...

The claim of property here is problematic. Under what circumstances was the title gained?  Would the duke respect and condone people acquiring his claimed property under the same conditions?  Is he responsible  for maintenance and mitigation of hazards thereupon? (Does he accept liability for the properties?)

Additionally Monoco does have a 20% VAT and 33% Corporate tax. Additional the cost a avoiding certain thefts may be greater than simply accepting them.

[M.2]

36 minutes ago, WorBlux said:

Additionally Monoco does have a 20% VAT and 33% Corporate tax. Additional the cost a avoiding certain thefts may be greater than simply accepting them.

Whether Monaco has tax or not is a bit beside the point. What I meant was that they could always move to country where there is less harrassment. But your point is fair as you say they may be tolerant of the tax because they find it the best deal. So I understand you say they accept the tax under duress... Which makes it theft. Got it. I personall would call it rent though.

Quote

1. The claim of property here is problematic. Under what circumstances was the title gained?  Would the duke respect and condone people acquiring his claimed property under the same conditions? 
2. Is he responsible  for maintenance and mitigation of hazards thereupon? (Does he accept liability for the properties?)

Here is the crux of the issue isn't it? Who owns what, where, when, why, etc.
1. Well, the line of dukes were granted the land and their title over a thousand years ago by the Holy Roman Emperor. I won't bore you with wikipedia history, but basically it was a completely lawful acquisition. So...yes? As for whether or not the Emperor acquired the land fairly, I think not. The Empire grew out of the Frankish Empire, which gained all of the land through violent conquest. 
2. The Luxembourgish crown-govenment is responsible for everything that happens on the land, so my answer would be yes. But I may be wrong. I think this question is irrelevant though, as property can be leased under various conditions.

[lorry]

21 hours ago, shirgall said:

Only if you always make the same decision in every case, and even then that only makes duress not exist for your decisions. If duress doesn't exist, why did our ancestors coin a word for "threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment." Sure, there are studies that show that people go along with taxes if they think someone is going to get shafted worse, and there are others who want to loot or mooch their way for life, and there are yet others who feel that if you play the game of voting you automatically consent to the decision of the plurality, but none of those things overrules the existence of a lack of consent for some of those who are taxed.

Instead we should recognize that borders, standing armies, legislation but plurality, and the like the necessarily evils that must always be overseen, constricted, limited, and questioned. If I believes that this was still being done I might grudgingly consent to being taxed, but I still would not expect to tax those who do not consent.

I agree but if duress doesn't exist for some decision, then that decision can't be said to be made under duress. (like if f = ma, holding m constant, change f, obverse no change in a, did f change?)

And I agree that isn't to say that duress doesn't exist.

And I agree that for the plurality taxation is under duress.

My point is that if tax isn't theft for everybody, all the time, then it isn't theft. And that is why I think some people do not accept that tax is theft and I think that that is why Stefan has an against me argument.

I suppose the full statement would be that a system of taxation involves a lot of theft and thus the fruit of any such system is immoral, like a fruit of a poisoned tree.

 

I do think the way to concretise the idea that taxation involves a lot theft is to walk through a historical example the taxation and redistribution of the wealth of those who owned the means of production, ie, the Jews circa 19XX. That might drive the idea home for a Normie.

[shirgall]

29 minutes ago, lorry said:

My point is that if tax isn't theft for everybody, all the time, then it isn't theft. And that is why I think some people do not accept that tax is theft and I think that that is why Stefan has an against me argument.

I think you have it backwards. Unless taxation is consented to by everyone affected for the entire time it is in effect, is it theft, because taking things from people without consent is theft. That is the bad apple that taints the barrel. That is the universal at play.

[lorry]

1 hour ago, shirgall said:

I think you have it backwards. Unless taxation is consented to by everyone affected for the entire time it is in effect, is it theft, because taking things from people without consent is theft. That is the bad apple that taints the barrel. That is the universal at play.

I agree it is immoral, but tax is still not theft. If a cake contains an egg, is a cake an egg?

 

[shirgall]

15 minutes ago, lorry said:

I agree it is immoral, but tax is still not theft. If a cake contains an egg, is a cake an egg?

If a cake contains a little poison, is it poisoned?

Stick to the facts and avoid the analogies. The bottom line is if taxation obtains resources without consent, it is theft. It's not even a tyranny of a majority that decides these things, but a plurality of representatives selected by pluralities.

If I were to engage if excessive analogy, the consent is diluted so much homeopathic cure-all peddlers are envious.

[lorry]

1 hour ago, shirgall said:

If a cake contains a little poison, is it poisoned?

Stick to the facts and avoid the analogies. The bottom line is if taxation obtains resources without consent, it is theft. It's not even a tyranny of a majority that decides these things, but a plurality of representatives selected by pluralities.

If I were to engage if excessive analogy, the consent is diluted so much homeopathic cure-all peddlers are envious.

Apples contain arsenic, are apples poisoned?

Sticking to the facts, tax involves the provision of some benefit and theft doesn't. So it is only theft if you don't prefer the benefit to the tax. But some people prefer the benefit to the tax. So for some people tax is not preferred, theft, and for some people tax is preferred, not theft.

So tax is theft and tax is not theft.

So tax is redefined as a process which involves theft and it is immoral because theft is immoral. But a process that involves theft is not the same a a process whose only step is theft.

So calling taxation theft is an analogy.

*edit If I wasn't totally clear I'm making a (sort of) utilitarian argument, but Stefan makes this argument when he talks about someone stealing a washing machine he doesn't want when explaining UBP (I forget where he did  that)

Edited September 7, 2017 by lorry

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎06‎. at 7:26 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. I cannot comment in detail about the laws of Luxembourg nor Monaco, but I can say if the Grand Duke is the legal owner of all Luxembourg then he is in the right to collect rent from his citizens. Even if his hereditary ownership came about through force, all fortunes are made virtuous through time. Most governments however do not have moral ownership as the people born onto those lands are unable to consent towards paying taxes and following the laws for force would be enacted against them if they refused. There cannot be consent when force is involved.

2. While Luxembourg may be an example of a gigantic privately own land (I'll take your word for the sake of argument that it is), most countries are not and most countries do not allow negotiation on the part of "tenants" to barter for individual rights unless it involves having less of them. To clarify, in a landlord scenario, the tenants should be able to barter with their landlord for a re-negotiating of terms, and children should not be born into debt nor duties imposed by those that came before them. I cannot choose to not pay taxes without be arrested or deported and/or having all my property (what little I have) confiscated as "punishment".

3. If Luxembourg is basically a gigantic privately owned land operating based on the libertarian values of the NAP and, in relation to children, not binding those too young to consent to contracts made in their name, then it is not equivocal to 99% of the worlds' governments who collect tax (not rent) based on violating individual property rights as well as demanding children be obligated towards making due on contracts supposedly agreed to by a voting public (which itself violates the property rights of the "minority") decades in advance. 

1. Yes, the Grand-Duke acquired the Land legally, bestowed upon him by the Holy Roman Emperor. I agree that most contemporary governments don't have the moral right to own everything in the country. Quite simply because a government does not exist. There is no such thing as a "people", nor a "nation", because there is no personhood there. In a monarchy however, there is a very well-defined actual legal person who is the owner of a given country. And as I have argued before, Monarchies are the best argument for private property. The best maintained countries in the world are those under a monarch. 

2. I am not well enough equiped to enter into a discussion over such legal matters. I would think that as long as the parties sign the contract of their own free will, they are bound. And unfortunately, a contract can and does affect one's children. Your parents sign on your behalf, and you can only opt out when you reach legal age.

3. In Luxembourg, for example, there is no birthright citizenship. Which means the govenment does not put the shackles on you at birth. 
I would challenge the 99% thing. If you concede that a monarhch, as the private owner of the land, has the right to collect rent from residents, then about 40 of the 200 countries in the world don't steal. This gets a bit complicated because not all monarchs are owners of the Land, but conservatively, they usually are.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

42 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Yes, the Grand-Duke acquired the Land legally, bestowed upon him by the Holy Roman Emperor. I agree that most contemporary governments don't have the moral right to own everything in the country. Quite simply because a government does not exist. There is no such thing as a "people", nor a "nation", because there is no personhood there. In a monarchy however, there is a very well-defined actual legal person who is the owner of a given country. And as I have argued before, Monarchies are the best argument for private property. The best maintained countries in the world are those under a monarch. 

Which doesn't cease to interest me. I think anti-monarchic propaganda has given monarchism (at least Christian monarchism) an exaggeratedly bad rep. Of course I'm still preferential to AnCap, however if that isn't "an option" (meaning it can't be done or can't be done yet) then I am strongly leaning towards a very morally and lawfully upright monarchy. 

Since Kings and other territorial rulers are actual people, they can be held accountable in contracts whereas "governments" (like corporations) are not individuals and therefore unaccountable to law or morality. Respect and faith in the law is necessary to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society. Combine Classical Liberalism, Austrian Economics, some AnCap, Christian values (which arguably a part of Classical Liberalism) and a monarchy is the necessary transition from a faceless state to a free society. 

42 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. I am not well enough equiped to enter into a discussion over such legal matters. I would think that as long as the parties sign the contract of their own free will, they are bound. And unfortunately, a contract can and does affect one's children. Your parents sign on your behalf, and you can only opt out when you reach legal age.

Neither am I; I speak of morality more than law here. I think a child should not be liable for their parents' contracts, and therefore at around 20 should have the option of opting out of whatever their parents agreed to (or continuing it). Like citizenship and tax: morally we should all have the option of consenting to tax for that would make governments far more efficient (and indistinguishable from charity, mercenary army company, and mercenary police force, in many ways) and far more responsive to the individual. Monarchies can satisfy this standard. Theoretically a King can be (as they were in many countries) bound by the laws of both the nation and of the Christ, as well as the common law values that are foundational to modern libertarian/ancap thought, (theoretically a King can be--I repeat) a morally consistent landlord and/or charity owner but with extra respect given to the history of the seat. 

42 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. In Luxembourg, for example, there is no birthright citizenship. Which means the govenment does not put the shackles on you at birth. 
I would challenge the 99% thing. If you concede that a monarhch, as the private owner of the land, has the right to collect rent from residents, then about 40 of the 200 countries in the world don't steal. This gets a bit complicated because not all monarchs are owners of the Land, but conservatively, they usually are.

I can't speak for all monarchies everywhere. Does Saudi Arabia or Kuwait abide by the Christian and libertarian values that is historical to the West? I don't know, but I'd assume not. Japan is technically a monarchy though real power is vested in the Imperial Diet (fundamentally the same as a parliamentarian republic therefore) and therefore it could be said the Diet's lack of accountability and desire to appease has been the Achilles Heel of modern Japanese society. 

However I think as a transition out of Statism a Christian and Western monarchy is far greater than any republic or democracy. 

[shirgall]

On 9/6/2017 at 10:26 PM, lorry said:

Apples contain arsenic, are apples poisoned?

Sticking to the facts, tax involves the provision of some benefit and theft doesn't. So it is only theft if you don't prefer the benefit to the tax. But some people prefer the benefit to the tax. So for some people tax is not preferred, theft, and for some people tax is preferred, not theft.

So tax is theft and tax is not theft.

So tax is redefined as a process which involves theft and it is immoral because theft is immoral. But a process that involves theft is not the same a a process whose only step is theft.

So calling taxation theft is an analogy.

*edit If I wasn't totally clear I'm making a (sort of) utilitarian argument, but Stefan makes this argument when he talks about someone stealing a washing machine he doesn't want when explaining UBP (I forget where he did  that)

Theft provisions benefit for the recipients of ill-gotten gains, just like taxation. I have benefited very little from taxation all my life, and certainly unlikely to have directly benefited. I never consented to any of those taxes. I call taxation theft because those resources are taken from me without my consent. Just because I didn't resist doesn't mean I consented.

There is no positive utility claim in violation of consent, only in the gathering of the resources. The utilitarian argument is that consent is irrelevant. Utilitarians don't believe in, or understand consent, only in that some machination must be erected to give the illusion of consent, like representative democracies, republics, or courts. None of these mechanisms actually garner unanimous consent. The only mechanism that respects consent applies taxes only to those that consent to them.

[Tyler H]

22 hours ago, lorry said:

My point is that if tax isn't theft for everybody, all the time, then it isn't theft. 

If drugging girls and having sex with them isn't rape for all girls, then drugging girls and having sex with them isn't rape. 

Hmmm, just doesn't have the same ring to it without all the propaganda, does it. 

[Tyler H]

19 hours ago, lorry said:

Apples contain arsenic, are apples poisoned?

You're equivocating "arsenic" and "poisoned" in order to make your analogy fit. Arsenic can be poisonous to humans but the amount in an apple is not. The term "poisoned" means that there is enough poison to have substantial negative effects. 

 

19 hours ago, lorry said:

Sticking to the facts, tax involves the provision of some benefit and theft doesn't.

So I'm going to come by your house and give you this beautiful clay pot I made (it's not beautiful, it looks like a turd you could use as an ashtray, maybe) and demand you pay me $100 for this provision I have so beneficently graced you with, and if you refuse I will have no choice but to forcefully extract my just payment, and if you try to defend yourself then a never ending supply of reinforcements will arrive until you comply or your miserly, freeloading heart ceases to beat. And this we will call the cost of living in a civilized society. 

Excuse me, I need to vomit. 

[lorry]

6 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Excuse me, I need to vomit. 

Did you eat too many apples?

Quote

"Philosophy cannot give you a set of dogmas to be applied automatically. Religion does that—and unsuccessfully. The dogmatic Objectivist desperately tries to reduce principles to concrete rules that can be applied automatically, like a ritual, so as to bypass the responsibility of thinking and moral analysis. These are “Objectivist” ritualists. They want Objectivism to give them what a religion promises, namely, ten or one hundred commandments, which they can apply without having to think or judge anything."

 

[WorBlux]

On 9/6/2017 at 1:28 PM, Mishi2 said:

Whether Monaco has tax or not is a bit beside the point. What I meant was that they could always move to country where there is less harrassment. But your point is fair as you say they may be tolerant of the tax because they find it the best deal. So I understand you say they accept the tax under duress... Which makes it theft. Got it. I personall would call it rent though.

Here is the crux of the issue isn't it? Who owns what, where, when, why, etc.
1. Well, the line of dukes were granted the land and their title over a thousand years ago by the Holy Roman Emperor. I won't bore you with wikipedia history, but basically it was a completely lawful acquisition. So...yes? As for whether or not the Emperor acquired the land fairly, I think not. The Empire grew out of the Frankish Empire, which gained all of the land through violent conquest. 
2. The Luxembourgish crown-govenment is responsible for everything that happens on the land, so my answer would be yes. But I may be wrong. I think this question is irrelevant though, as property can be leased under various conditions.

1. Lawful=Opinion of a particular legislator. I'm looking for facts here.  The facts you mention (grant subsequent to violent conquest) are precisely those of theft and murder.  Certainly the duke would not acquiesce to the violent conquest of his own claimed territory, or the subsequent redistribution to lackeys. 

2. So what particular, enforceable duties does the Duke and freinds, (alias "The Crown") have  because of this alleged responsibility. Remember I'm interested in facts, not opinions. Is this a real responsibility with real consequences, or is it just public relations propaganda (vox et praeterea nihil)?

3. Another issue with feudalism is that feudal pledges fall flat on their face if you analyze them through the lens of contract theory.  The Consent if often far from perfect, and the meeting of the minds is imperfect as it subjects the vassal to unknown future terms.

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎08‎. at 4:17 PM, WorBlux said:

1. Lawful=Opinion of a particular legislator. I'm looking for facts here.  The facts you mention (grant subsequent to violent conquest) are precisely those of theft and murder.  Certainly the duke would not acquiesce to the violent conquest of his own claimed territory, or the subsequent redistribution to lackeys. 

2. So what particular, enforceable duties does the Duke and freinds, (alias "The Crown") have  because of this alleged responsibility. Remember I'm interested in facts, not opinions. Is this a real responsibility with real consequences, or is it just public relations propaganda (vox et praeterea nihil)?

3. Another issue with feudalism is that feudal pledges fall flat on their face if you analyze them through the lens of contract theory.  The Consent if often far from perfect, and the meeting of the minds is imperfect as it subjects the vassal to unknown future terms.

1. At one point or another, I guarantee you, the very land you are standing on had been stolen by someone from another through force and murder. There is absolutely no way to rectify such things. If you however want to hold current owners responsible for things that the previous owners did, I think there is a rabbit hole you will never reappear from. Again, by lawful, I may have not used the word you were looking for. It was basically fully in line with the NAP, property rights, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ducal_Family_of_Luxembourg

2. What do you mean what responsibilities? Here are the details; knock yourself out:

"...The Grand Duke is the head of state. He embodies the independence and continuity of a state that was strongly influenced by the ups and downs of history.

Sovereign power resides in the nation. The exercise of sovereign powers is entrusted to the Grand Duke. He has only those powers that the Constitution and laws expressly confer upon him.

The Grand Duke has a central and essential function: he is considered to be the cornerstone of the institutional system. However, his actions strictly follow the maxim that 'the Sovereign reigns but does not govern.'..." http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/en/le-grand-duche-se-presente/monarchie/chef-etat/index.html

The power of the monarch is kept in check by the other branches of government.

3. You don't really know how monarchies work, do you? Present me a fact that we can both analyze. I am not interested in opinions. (I actually am interested. I am just beinga dick.)

Quote

1. Which doesn't cease to interest me. I think anti-monarchic propaganda has given monarchism (at least Christian monarchism) an exaggeratedly bad rep. Of course I'm still preferential to AnCap, however if that isn't "an option" (meaning it can't be done or can't be done yet) then I am strongly leaning towards a very morally and lawfully upright monarchy. 

2. Since Kings and other territorial rulers are actual people, they can be held accountable in contracts whereas "governments" (like corporations) are not individuals and therefore unaccountable to law or morality. Respect and faith in the law is necessary to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society. Combine Classical Liberalism, Austrian Economics, some AnCap, Christian values (which arguably a part of Classical Liberalism) and a monarchy is the necessary transition from a faceless state to a free society. 

3. Neither am I; I speak of morality more than law here. I think a child should not be liable for their parents' contracts, and therefore at around 20 should have the option of opting out of whatever their parents agreed to (or continuing it). Like citizenship and tax: morally we should all have the option of consenting to tax for that would make governments far more efficient (and indistinguishable from charity, mercenary army company, and mercenary police force, in many ways) and far more responsive to the individual. Monarchies can satisfy this standard. Theoretically a King can be (as they were in many countries) bound by the laws of both the nation and of the Christ, as well as the common law values that are foundational to modern libertarian/ancap thought, (theoretically a King can be--I repeat) a morally consistent landlord and/or charity owner but with extra respect given to the history of the seat. 

4. I can't speak for all monarchies everywhere. Does Saudi Arabia or Kuwait abide by the Christian and libertarian values that is historical to the West? I don't know, but I'd assume not. Japan is technically a monarchy though real power is vested in the Imperial Diet (fundamentally the same as a parliamentarian republic therefore) and therefore it could be said the Diet's lack of accountability and desire to appease has been the Achilles Heel of modern Japanese society. 

1. It helps to recognise that history is written to justify the present. Monarchy indeed has it very bad in certain cultures: American, French, German, Post-Soviet, Communist. That is because their status quo can only be explained if monarchy was bad. In many places however, monarchy is being sorely missed: Russia, Italy, Poland...
One thing these propagandists do is underestimate the intellectual capabilities of their people, and with good reason. Most people have no idea that the best functioning countries in every region are monarchies, with a couple democracies mixed inbetween. For examples, liberals would bash monarchy all day, but they had no idea that their utopia, Sweden, is a monarchy. Even Mr.Molyneux has an unfavourable view of monarchy, but the best example he likes working with is Japan, a monarchy.

2. Playing the devil's advocate, democracies have proven to work, with the examples of Switzerland, San Marino, even USA. There is however very specific prerequisites for a functional democracy. Not as unattainable as the prerequisites for socialism, but still. Nevertheless, I think history has proven that it is indeed much harder to transition from democracy to freedom than it is from monarchy.

3. I understand this is a philosophy forum, but I also think the important standard to aim for is what CAN be rather than what SHOULD be. There will never be a completely free society, void of force and coercion. What I like about catholic teachings, is that although they point to the heavens, they do it from the ground. About contract and owership, I would recommend reading the "Rerum Novarum" - completely rational, and down-to-earth stuff. Nothing of the belikejesus sort.

4. One thing that all monarchies are good at is intellectual honesty. If you ask a democracy "who is your leader?" they will answer "the people", and you already know they are bsing. When you ask a dictatorship, they will say "the common good", and you know they are bsing. When you ask a theocracy, you get "the gods", and you know they are bsing. When you ask a monarchy, they will say "the monarch", and that is probably true.
Monarchy is not something that can only be effective through executive action. The Emperor of Japan, for example is the cornerstone of japanese unity, and for them, although they know he is a man, he is barely distinguishable from a god. What I mean is that for the Japanese, the Emperor, is, was and will be. Japanese servicepeople speak their oath in the name of the Emperor, not of Japan, and you know they mean it. The Emperor had no power when he ordered Japan to stand down in WW2, yet the people wouldn't have listened to anyone else.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Mishi2

[Sir Exotic]

On 9/5/2017 at 6:26 PM, shirgall said:

Theft is not based on preference but consent. For taxation not to be theft, only those who vote for a tax should be obligated to pay for it. That people prefer to pay a tax rather than be shot resisting arrest doesn't make it consensual.

Yes, yes, and yes!

[lorry]

On 07/09/2017 at 11:47 PM, shirgall said:

Theft provisions benefit for the recipients of ill-gotten gains, just like taxation. I have benefited very little from taxation all my life, and certainly unlikely to have directly benefited. I never consented to any of those taxes. I call taxation theft because those resources are taken from me without my consent. Just because I didn't resist doesn't mean I consented.

There is no positive utility claim in violation of consent, only in the gathering of the resources. The utilitarian argument is that consent is irrelevant. Utilitarians don't believe in, or understand consent, only in that some machination must be erected to give the illusion of consent, like representative democracies, republics, or courts. None of these mechanisms actually garner unanimous consent. The only mechanism that respects consent applies taxes only to those that consent to them.

 

Taxation provisions a benefit for those taxed, unlike theft. In the case where the benefit is preferred to the levy, tax preferable and therefor not theft. In the case where the benefit is not preferred to the levy, tax is not preferable and therefore theft. A system of taxation involves theft but is not in all parts, theft. It is immoral because requires theft but it is not by definition, theft.

 

The Utilitarian aspect is that I can't steal something you want me to take (UPB) is an equivalent statement to theft results decrement in utility. It follows that an increment in utility can not be theft. So a system taxation wherein all those taxed experience a decrement in utility is not preferred for all people and so is theft for all people and so is all theft. But a system of taxation wherein one person taxed does not experience a decrement in utility is then preferred by one person is then not theft for one person is then not theft for all people is then not theft.

 

Prohibited morally? Yes. Reduces to theft one special case? Yes. Theft by definition? No.

 

p.s. I can't see a definition of consent that doesn't involve the concept of communicating, the giving, something. What exactly is being communicated by consent?

[shirgall]

6 hours ago, lorry said:

Taxation provisions a benefit for those taxed...

What benefit do I derive from taxation that justifies taking my resources from me without my consent?