Tax plan not looking so hot.

Perhaps and lets say it does, but upon that reallocation do the new owners recognize that property as theirs?
It's not about recognition, it's about how the property is protected and allowed to be owned. Our current system is a lot better than a free for all. You're making a silly argument.
 
Look at his posts. That's exactly what he's saying, the government is the one imposing recognition of private property.
Yes, as in that other people recognize that it's your property, not that you do. I think you're taking recognize to literally. It's not like, "I recognize that I am looking at a car.". It's, "I recognize your right to that property.".
 
It's not about recognition, it's about how the property is protected and allowed to be owned. Our current system is a lot better than a free for all. You're making a silly argument.

No he's saying that without government people wouldn't recognize or own any private property. He thinks the default is for people to be altrusitiscally self less, but that flies in the face of eveyday observations we have about the people around us and frankly anything biology has to say about sexual selection among mammals or the affect genetic variability has on communities of organisms.

In short its just doublspeak, and you're getting conned by this asshole.
 
No he's saying that without government people wouldn't recognize or own any private property. He thinks the default is for people to be altrusitiscally self less, but that flies in the face of eveyday observations we have about the people around us and frankly anything biology has to say about sexual selection among mammals or the affect genetic variability has on communities of organisms.

In short its just doublspeak, and you're getting conned by this asshole.
I'll let him answer for himself.

@Jack V Savage
 
Yes, as in that other people recognize that it's your property, not that you do. I think you're taking recognize to literally. It's not like, "I recognize that I am looking at a car.". It's, "I recognize your right to that property.".

So then all he's saying there is that government imposes its self as the only arbiter for cases where that recognition is in dispute... Its not imposing anything on us other than its extortion to remain as that monopoly.
 
I agree... so why are we adding another layer of extortion on top of the mix? Why are we sending a sizable portion of useful resources to be plundered through bureaucracies?

It's not another layer so much as it's just more of the same. Generally when assets change hands they are subject to taxation.


Most farmer operations are classified as asset rich and cash poor. This means that the estate tax can only be paid through the sale of land, equipment, or (in the instance of ranchers) livestock and breeding stock.

This means that your children will have to sell at least half (if your lucky) of the assets you spent your lifetime to achieve, just to pay a punitive tax. Many farms can no longer operate without the essential equipment and/or assets that had to be sold in order to pay this punitive tax.

I will do all I can to ensure the fruits of my labors are passed down to my children. Being forced to give away half of everything I own upon my death accomplishes nothing, other than a socialist's smile.

I hear you. But getting 5 million worth of shit for free and 50% of everything beyond that isn't leaving anyone destitute. On top of that you can put everything in a trust. I'd think people with multi-million dollar businesses could spring for a little tax planning advice.


Also, Jack is right about property.

@Greoric

He's right that government enforces private property rights. I don't know that it's true that without government people wouldn't lay claim to property and defend its use from others. In fact I find it hard to believe they wouldn't. Seems more like the government is merely taking on the role of provider of violence, which serves to stabilize the possession and transfer of real estate. Each and every one of us having to defend our land against hostile takeover would be quite the burden. So in that sense you could say that government allows for wide-scale ownership, but people staking out territory would happen regardless.
 
No he's saying that without government people wouldn't recognize or own any private property.

Try to represent other people's views honestly. Private property as we know it was imposed by gov'ts. You're always going to have some way to manage control over land and other resources (and traditionally, people have distinguished people private possessions and property).

He thinks the default is for people to be altrusitiscally self less, but that flies in the face of eveyday observations we have about the people around us and frankly anything biology has to say about sexual selection among mammals or the affect genetic variability has on communities of organisms.

Again, I don't know why you feel the need to lie so constantly and so obviously.

In short its just doublspeak, and you're getting conned by this asshole.

Maybe if you addressed my actual points, you'd agree? That's the only reason I can see for your behavior.
 
I won't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what he's saying.
@Greoric is right.

Jack has made the argument (unsuccessfully) to me several times. He believes the mere act of owning property is somehow an initiation of the use of force against everyone else.
 
@7437 you too,

Which part are you against? The middle class getting extorted out of money, or the fact that government has the power to extort money from you and give it to them?

Neither? I am fine paying some taxes. I am not fine having a tax increase so that coporations can profit more through lower taxes and subsidised wages.
 
He's right that government enforces private property rights. I don't know that it's true that without government people wouldn't lay claim to property and defend its use from others. In fact I find it hard to believe they wouldn't.

See above. It's not a theoretical matter. We have records. Pre-enclosure England, you had common land that peasant farmers used. If you look at stateless societies, there is usually some kind of arrangement for sacred or productive land, and often even for land that people just want to use. Like, elders in a village decide where a young couple can put their house up, but that land can't be bought and sold, and it reverts after death. There are a lot of ways the questions are answered, but the commodification of land is pretty new (one of the defining features of "capitalism").

Seems more like the government is merely taking on the role of provider of violence, which serves to stabilize the possession and transfer of real estate.

If we're talking about inter-societal land conflicts, this is true. Within societies, the gov't is fundamentally changing the nature of control.

@Greoric is right.

Jack has made the argument (unsuccessfully) to me several times. He believes the mere act of owning property is somehow an initiation of the use of force against everyone else.

It's tautologically true that property ownership requires the initiation of force against everyone else. That is, what it means to own property is that you have the sole usage rights to it and the gov't will initiate force on your behalf or allow you to initiate force to defend it.
 
It's not another layer so much as it's just more of the same. Generally when assets change hands they are subject to taxation.

I'm not seeing why both those can't be true. Why isn't it more of the same and another layer of extortion?

Each and every one of us having to defend our land against hostile takeover would be quite the burden....

There's not much to suppose that would be the case though right? Security is right up there on the hierarchy of demands isn't it? Why wouldn't there be a supply?
 
Neither? I am fine paying some taxes. I am not fine having a tax increase so that coporations can profit more through lower taxes and subsidised wages.

You're fine with taxes as long as everyone else is extorted to, right? If you don't want them subsidizing wages then cut those programs out.
 
It's tautologically true that property ownership requires the initiation of force against everyone else.

No dude, because the alternative (everyone using the same piece of property at the same time) isn't tangible to anything that could be exercised in reality.
 
Last edited:
I'm not seeing why both those can't be true. Why isn't it more of the same and another layer of extortion?



There's not much to suppose that would be the case though right? Security is right up there on the hierarchy of demands isn't it? Why wouldn't there be a supply?
Not everyone can afford the same level of private security. I can't believe I actually had to type that out.
 
To all Sherdog posters and readers:

Note Jacks reply in post #329.

Rather than just admit that he is wrong on something very basic, he will try and twist and redefine basic definitions just so he won't have to admit that he is wrong.

Natural resources (because we're talking about land among other things) are not the same as wealth.

When individual intelligence discovers a way for a natural resource to be converted (usually through labor, not always) into something of use to themselves or others, wealth can be created.

We have now provably established that Jack does not debate honestly, or in good faith.
 
Not everyone can afford the same level of private security. I can't believe I actually had to type that out.

So the disparity is your chief concern even if that means the average quality and access increases when a disparity exists?
 
Back
Top