Which side champions 'individualism' more - liberals or conservatives?

[Robert163]

@Waymore

Nobody said anything about laws. I just said taxation is theft.

So is private property.

At some point someone stole that piece of land from someone else.

If you buy a car that has been sold and resold 3 times, but, was stolen 10 years ago, the police are going to take it and give it back to the original, proper owner, right? If they can’t find the proper owner but know it was stolen, they still take the car, right?

[Waymore]

@AHunter3

Taxes aren’t theft because money doesn’t exist except insofar as it is created by the very people who tax you — your government.

The rule that says you have to pay taxes is a part of the same game as the rule that says these quantified tokens called “money” have value.

Governments have operated historically without the said government printing money. Money is just a convenient way of making economic transactions easier.

Besides, things like labor, human capital, real estate, etc. have value independent of somebody running a printing press somewhere cranking out green pieces paper with pictures of dead guys on them. Think about bartering arrangements for example.

[Waymore]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Often when a person thinks they’re “calling things like they are,” it means they just haven’t thought things through all the way. Again, theft is a meaningless concept in a state of anarchy, as property itself relies on a government body making and enforcing laws. That government body needs to gain resources from somewhere.

The old situationist slogan “Property is theft” is more reasonable than the new Tea Party saw that “taxation is theft.”

Not at all. Property predates government.

[Waymore]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I’m distinguishing between property and property rights.

How can you have property without property rights? The former implies the latter.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The idea that property should only change hands during a mutally-agreed-upon transaction is not a necessary precursor to taxation; indeed, taxation is millennia old, whereas this idea is not.

I don’t see the connection between the bolded above and what we are discussing. Please elaborate.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I’ve read my Locke and my Smith, but not my Hobbs. You’re welcome to summarize an argument that property rights can exist without government, but I suspect you’re misunderstanding either Hobbs or myself if you think he’s going to refute what I said.

Hobbes argued that people institute governments to avoid things like theft and murder.

Theft can’t take place unless there’s property to be preyed upon. So it goes property, theft then government in chronological order.

[Waymore]

@Robert163

So is private property.

Theft presupposes property. If nobody owns anything, it’s impossible to steal. What you’re proposing is literally nonsensical.

[Robert163]

@Waymore

Theft presupposes property. If nobody owns anything, it’s impossible to steal.

This sounds like a convenient excuse.

Primitive people hunted or farmed land. At some point, another group of people came in and with violent force, took over that land.

Hiding behind the “definition” of property is just an excuse.

[Waymore]

@Robert163

This sounds like a convenient excuse.

Primitive people hunted or farmed land. At some point, another group of people came in and with violent force, took over that land.

Hiding behind the “definition” of property is just an excuse.

Words have meanings big guy. Seems like you have a beef with historical injustices. Fair enough. You still can’t steal things if nobody owns anything.

[Robert163]

@Waymore

Words have meanings big guy. Seems like you have a beef with historical injustices. Fair enough. You still can’t steal things if nobody owns anything.

I have a beef with people trying to shut down conversation by throwing out terms like “taxation is theft”.

If tax is theft then so is property.

[Waymore]

@Robert163

I have a beef with people trying to shut down conversation by throwing out terms like “taxation is theft”.

If tax is theft then so is property.

So how is throwing out a term like “taxation is theft” an attempt to shut down conversation? I’m truly curious.

[Robert163]

@Waymore

So how is throwing out a term like “taxation is theft” an attempt to shut down conversation? I’m truly curious.

You don’t think “taxation is theft” is a derogatory term aimed at left wing politics/people???

Maybe you don’t mean it that way. There are lots of people posting here. It is hard to keep up with the agendas/opinions of everyone posting here.

[Waymore]

@Robert163

You don’t think “taxation is theft” is a derogatory term aimed at left wing politics/people???

Maybe you don’t mean it that way. There are lots of people posting here. It is hard to keep up with the agendas/opinions of everyone posting here.

So stating an opinion that doesn’t jive with left wing politics/people is derogatory and shuts down conversation? Do I understand you correctly?

[Robert163]

@Waymore

So stating an opinion that doesn’t jive with left wing politics/people is derogatory and shuts down conversation? Do I understand you correctly?

I do know this:

answering a question with a question is a tactic, it is not an attempt at actual dialogue.

[Waymore]

@Robert163

I do know this:

answering a question with a question is a tactic, it is not an attempt at actual dialogue.

So, I noticed you didn’t answer the question I asked. I’ll restate it.

[QUOTE=Waymore]
So stating an opinion that doesn’t jive with left wing politics/people is derogatory and shuts down conversation? Do I understand you correctly?
[/QUOTE]

How do you answer?

[Robert163]

@Waymore

So, I noticed you didn’t answer the question I asked. I’ll restate it.

How do you answer?

Your response, to my criticism, that you don’t really want to have dialogue, because you answer a question with a question, is to repeat your question???

[Waymore]

@Robert163

Your response, to my criticism, that you don’t really want to have dialogue, because you answer a question with a question, is to repeat your question???

Look, I’ll spell this out for you in a very clear way.

In post 88 you wrote:

[QUOTE=Robert163]
I have a beef with people trying to shut down conversation by throwing out terms like “taxation is theft”.

If tax is theft then so is property.

[/QUOTE]

That’s two declarative statements.

In post 89 I wrote:

[QUOTE=Waymore]
So how is throwing out a term like “taxation is theft” an attempt to shut down conversation? I’m truly curious.

[/QUOTE]

I made the first interrogative statement in this exchange.

In post 90 you wrote:

[QUOTE=Robert163]
You don’t think “taxation is theft” is a derogatory term aimed at left wing politics/people???

[/QUOTE]

You answered my interrogative statement with an interrogative statement.

But then in post 92 you wrote:

[QUOTE=Robert163]
I do know this:

answering a question with a question is a tactic, it is not an attempt at actual dialogue.

[/QUOTE]

Thereby accusing me of doing something you did two posts previously.

So, I would appreciate an answer to my question in post 91:

[QUOTE=Waymore]
So stating an opinion that doesn’t jive with left wing politics/people is derogatory and shuts down conversation? Do I understand you correctly?
[/QUOTE]

I would really appreciate your answer to the above question.

[Robert163]

@Waymore

I would really appreciate your answer to the above question.

Expressing an opinion different than left wing political thinking is not shutting down conversation. But throwing out derogatory platitudes most definitely is.

[Waymore]

@Robert163

Expressing an opinion different than left wing political thinking is not shutting down conversation. But throwing out derogatory platitudes most definitely is.

And what makes “taxation is theft” derogatory?

[Robert163]

@Waymore

And what makes “taxation is theft” derogatory?

Because theft is generally considered to be a negative action

[Waymore]

@Robert163

Because theft is generally considered to be a negative action

So I shouldn’t call taking money from somebody against their will theft because theft has a negative connotation, thereby making taxation redound to the discredit of the left? And if I do I’m shutting down conversation?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Waymore

How can you have property without property rights? The former implies the latter.

Nope. I can easily claim that this club I made is mine by dint of my willingness to smash in the head of anyone who wants to take it. Property rights implies an ethical system that involves rights.

I don’t see the connection between the bolded above and what we are discussing. Please elaborate.

That’s what property rights mean, isn’t it–that property is stuff you own, and that it can only ethically be taken from you by someone with whom you’ve reached a coercion-free agreement? If that’s not what you mean by property rights, could you offer your definition?

Hobbes argued that people institute governments to avoid things like theft and murder.

There is no theft, nor murder, without government. There’s taking of material, and there’s homicide. Government invents theft and murder.

Theft can’t take place unless there’s property to be preyed upon. So it goes property, theft then government in chronological order.

Not quite. It goes “having stuff,” “the strongest/most murderous person taking stuff from others,” “others banding together to form a government to mediate this process,” “defining that violent taking of stuff as theft,” in that order.

“Theft” does not mean “taking items without an agreement to have those items taken.” It means, “the unlawful taking of items.”