[Eran]

Aah, so parents who have to be threatened into sending their kids to school are withholding them as a protest at poor standards and would actually be willing to spend the tax money they probably don't pay anyway on private education.

Parents would refuse sending their children to public schools in which they don't learn anything, but rather expose themselves to a range of physical threats and emotional torture, but would be willing to pay money to send them to private schools in which they do learn and even enjoy themselves.

Why is that difficult to understand?

In fact, this precise phenomenon is documented in "A Beautiful Tree". Slum-dwelling parents refuse to send their children to (free) public schools, while paying money to send them to private schools.

Only if one accepts that tax dogers are innocent

The word "innocent" is obviously ambiguous. How about "peaceful" instead? Tax dodgers may well be entirely peaceful in that they do not initiate force against any other person. They don't trespass or otherwise violate any other person's property rights. All they want is to be left alone. Yet government agents will threaten them with force if they don't fork over some of their property.

[SueDeNîmes]

Parents would refuse sending their children to public schools in which they don't learn anything, but rather expose themselves to a range of physical threats and emotional torture, but would be willing to pay money to send them to private schools in which they do learn and even enjoy themselves.

Why is that difficult to understand?

It's perfectly facile. It just bears almost no resemblance to the reality or anything I've described.

In fact, this precise phenomenon is documented in "A Beautiful Tree". Slum-dwelling parents refuse to send their children to (free) public schools, while paying money to send them to private schools.

See earlier posts re same

The word "innocent" is obviously ambiguous. How about "peaceful" instead?

Or how about "free rider" or "exploiter"

Tax dodgers may well be entirely peaceful in that they do not initiate force against any other person. They don't trespass or otherwise violate any other person's property rights.

But they do. Property is a social convention, the terms of which they violate in not abiding by the conditions under which others grant it. They seek to impose some weird metaphysical concept of property on others who may have no incentive to recognise it.

All they want is to be left alone. Yet government agents will threaten them with force if they don't fork over some of their property.

Then they're free to move to the anarchic hellhole of their choice. Aren't they?

[Eran]

Property is a social convention, the terms of which they violate in not abiding by the conditions under which others grant it.

I haven't mentioned property other than to say that those "tax dodgers" do NOT violate anybody else's property rights.

By bowing to "social convention", you take a relativistic ethical viewpoint that can be used to justify any social regime, no matter how vile.

They seek to impose some weird metaphysical concept of property on others who may have no incentive to recognise it.

They want to be left alone if they leave others alone. You call that "weird metaphysical concept"?

Then they're free to move to the anarchic hellhole of their choice.

Why should they have to? Again, I am painting a scenario of people who don't bother anybody, and just want to be left alone. Why should they have to leave?

[SueDeNîmes]

Property is a social convention, the terms of which they violate in not abiding by the conditions under which others grant it.

I haven't mentioned property other than to say that those "tax dodgers" do NOT violate anybody else's property rights.

Which, so far, has been the entirety of your argument for characterising them as the innocent in "force initiated against innocent people."

By bowing to "social convention", you take a relativistic ethical viewpoint that can be used to justify any social regime, no matter how vile.

How? Did I say any social convention, however vile, must be bowed to? No, nothing of the kind. On the contrary, reducing society's moral code to property rights allows for a vile social regime which ought to be resisted.

They seek to impose some weird metaphysical concept of property on others who may have no incentive to recognise it.

They want to be left alone if they leave others alone. You call that "weird metaphysical concept"?

But they don't. They want the benefits of civil society without paying for them, and then insist it be remade to suit them in ways which seem immoral and dangerous to others.

Then they're free to move to the anarchic hellhole of their choice.

Why should they have to? Again, I am painting a scenario of people who don't bother anybody, and just want to be left alone. Why should they have to leave?

They don't. They're free to leave if they don't like the rules. Their choice.

[Joe Liberty]

All this talk of wanting a civil society without paying for it seems to ignore the fact that much of what is paid for by tax dollars has nothing to do with a "civil society".

War, waste, over-regulation, massive bureacracy, regulatory creep... awhile back I posted a list of the 700+ federal agencies that exist and challenged anybody to show me that there weren't at least a third of them that were wholly unnecessary.

So let's not assume that current federal spending is all good, and that's exactly the assumption implicit in that argument.

[SueDeNîmes]

No it isn't. I put that argument assuming some waste and gov't spending I disagree with. Because I'm not entitled to pick and chose rules if I want to stay either.

[mum]

the statists can never properly explain how to reduce/eliminate all the waste either, apart from saying "we can just do it better"
That has never worked, and never will

[Eran]

Which, so far, has been the entirety of your argument for characterising them as the innocent in "force initiated against innocent people."

What other argument does one need to characterise people as "innocent", beyond the fact that they have done nothing wrong?

People who merely wish to be left alone, and which harm nobody are still being victimised by both tax and regulatory authorities.

On the contrary, reducing society's moral code to property rights allows for a vile social regime which ought to be resisted.

Not just any "property rights", but specifically "justly-acquired property rights", namely property rights acquired exclusively through peaceful interaction with others. Respecting those property rights is nothing less or more than asking that peaceful people are left alone.

They want the benefits of civil society without paying for them, and then insist it be remade to suit them in ways which seem immoral and dangerous to others.

They are happy to pay for those benefits that they actually use. It is precisely the current system in which many people don't pay for the benefits they take advantage of.

I am not advocating free-ridership - I am opposing it. Why aren't you?

They're free to leave if they don't like the rules.

Who gave government the right to set rules? Without such right, they have no legitimacy in compelling those who refuse to obey the rules to leave or suffer. The right to set the rules is precisely the core of our disagreement.

You could claim that in a democracy, government obtain the right by virtue of the support of the majority. I will save us one exchange by pre-empting and asking - who gave the majority the right to set the rules?

Since life in society is very complicated, I suggest we look at a simple test-case.

Consider the Australian outback (or the middle of some American desert). I am an entrepreneur who wants to mine for minerals in the middle of the desert in an area not currently inhabited or otherwise use by any person. I am even able to get there using a helicopter, thus avoiding the use of public roads.

As soon as I start operating my mine, government agents arrive, demanding that I comply with a long list of laws, including paying taxes, registering my company, withholding taxes for my employees, etc, etc.

By what right do the majority of citizens who live hundreds or thousands of miles away from my isolated spot, and which have done nothing to tie them to that spot, claim a piece of the wealth I am unearthing?

[ingliz]

Consider the Australian outback

Since all land belongs to the state, the state has a right to make the rules as to how its tenants must behave and extract rent.

[mum]

Since all land belongs to the state, the state has a right to make the rules as to how its tenants must behave and extract rent.

No it doesn't. And no, it doesn't.

The state has no "rights". As the state represents the majority, taking your statement to its logical conclusion legitimises the murder of innocent people, by the state/majority.

[Eran]

It is precisely the legitimacy of the state's claim of ownership that is under discussion here.

I am eager to hear any moral justification for such claim, starting with the context of land that isn't being used by anybody.

[ingliz]

taking your statement to its logical conclusion legitimises the murder of innocent people, by the state/majority.

Don't be silly

legitimises

The state is the source of legitimate physical force.

murder

It cannot be murder as murder is unlawful killing.

innocent people

They cannot be innocent if they have broken the law.

moral justification for such claim

As all property is theft, what need is there for "moral justification"? Might is right.

[mum]

The state is the source of legitimate physical force.

No thanks. I disagree

It cannot be murder as murder is unlawful killing.

Clearly your moral principals are different to most people on earth.
This is a good thing

They cannot be innocent if they have broken the law.

Even I suppose if a law was created after the "fact" and applied retrospectively to ensure "guilt" ?

As all property is theft, what need is there for "moral justification"? Might is right.

Property is not theft. It is non nonsensical for a physical object to be theft.
A rock is theft ? gold is theft?
Who is really being silly huh?

[ingliz]

Property

"'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property"

[mikema63]

Well the laborers own their labor don't they?

Your agreeing on their labor.

[ingliz]

Well the laborers own their labor don't they?

Not necessarily

Property rights are an expression of the relations of production, corresponding to a particular stage of development in material production.

[mikema63]

Libertarians think it only relates to labor.

[SueDeNîmes]

What other argument does one need to characterise people as "innocent", beyond the fact that they have done nothing wrong?

People who merely wish to be left alone, and which harm nobody are still being victimised by both tax and regulatory authorities.

How? Are they detained at the border en route to their anarchic hellholes of choice?

On the contrary, reducing society's moral code to property rights allows for a vile social regime which ought to be resisted.

Not just any "property rights", but specifically "justly-acquired property rights", namely property rights acquired exclusively through peaceful interaction with others. Respecting those property rights is nothing less or more than asking that peaceful people are left alone.

Reducing morality to property rights, however acquired, will likely beget a vile society. Sticking the qualifier "justly-acquired" in front of anything doesn't make it so.

They are happy to pay for those benefits that they actually use. It is precisely the current system in which many people don't pay for the benefits they take advantage of.

I am not advocating free-ridership - I am opposing it. Why aren't you?

What they're happy to pay for is irrelevant. If they stay without ponying up, they inevitably free-ride unless everyone else transforms society into something they don't want.

Who gave government the right to set rules? Without such right, they have no legitimacy in compelling those who refuse to obey the rules to leave or suffer. The right to set the rules is precisely the core of our disagreement.

You could claim that in a democracy, government obtain the right by virtue of the support of the majority. I will save us one exchange by pre-empting and asking - who gave the majority the right to set the rules?

You might as well ask who made us a social species with conflicting interests. No one, it's just our existential lot and a simple fact that property only exists insofar as the majority recognise it -- whether you label that 'government' or not.

Since life in society is very complicated, I suggest we look at a simple test-case.

Consider the Australian outback (or the middle of some American desert). I am an entrepreneur who wants to mine for minerals in the middle of the desert in an area not currently inhabited or otherwise use by any person. I am even able to get there using a helicopter, thus avoiding the use of public roads.

As soon as I start operating my mine, government agents arrive, demanding that I comply with a long list of laws, including paying taxes, registering my company, withholding taxes for my employees, etc, etc.

By what right do the majority of citizens who live hundreds or thousands of miles away from my isolated spot, and which have done nothing to tie them to that spot, claim a piece of the wealth I am unearthing?

By what right do you claim it? See if you can answer without resorting to a load of circular definitions nonLibertarians don't recognise.

[Eran]

Reducing morality to property rights, however acquired, will likely beget a vile society. Sticking the qualifier "justly-acquired" in front of anything doesn't make it so.

Morality isn't reduced to property rights. The use of force is.

How is restricting the use of force to property rights any more vile than restricting it to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats?

No one, it's just our existential lot and a simple fact that property only exists insofar as the majority recognise it -- whether you label that 'government' or not.

In the context of this debate, I am trying to persuade the majority (with remarkably little success, I must add) to change how it recognises property. I am advocating a system whereby property rights aren't determined through political fiat, but through adherence to the Non Aggression Principle.

While the majority is against me, my views will obviously not take hold - I am not advocating a violent overthrow of government.

If and when the majority does side with me, your concerns will be moot.

By what right do you claim it?

The right to do as I please, so long as I don't initiate force against other people or their (peaceful) projects.

That right is fundamental - not based upon any other. It is sometimes referred to as an Axiom. It is the proposed basis of my ethical theory on the legitimate use of force.

[SueDeNîmes]

Morality isn't reduced to property rights. The use of force is.

How is restricting the use of force to property rights any more vile than restricting it to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats?

Dunno, you'd have to ask someone who advocates restricting it to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. Restricting it to property rights would beget a vile society because property distributution would effectively circumscribe individual liberty.

In the context of this debate, I am trying to persuade the majority (with remarkably little success, I must add) to change how it recognises property. I am advocating a system whereby property rights aren't determined through political fiat, but through adherence to the Non Aggression Principle.

While the majority is against me, my views will obviously not take hold - I am not advocating a violent overthrow of government.

If and when the majority does side with me, your concerns will be moot.

Indeed, which is no violent assault upon you meantime. It just means you're shit out of luck, like people without property in your Libertopia.

The right to do as I please, so long as I don't initiate force against other people or their (peaceful) projects.

That right is fundamental - not based upon any other. It is sometimes referred to as an Axiom. It is the proposed basis of my ethical theory on the legitimate use of force.

And a bad case of "resorting to circular definitions non-Libertarians don't recognise" - to restore the bit of my question you mysteriously edited out.