You have students?
How can human government predate humanity?
It’s a rock solid analogy and far from irrelevant. You’re the one who floated the idea that theft and murder only exists when a person lives under a government, but somehow rape is different? That’s special pleading and a cop out.
Your first link is just about lexicography in general. It’s neither here nor there.
Your second link states the definition of theft as:
Matches what I’ve been saying. “The wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another” is theft, even in the absence of government.
Your third link says that murder is the killing of another human under special conditions of the law. Again, there’s no reason to presume that killing another in the absence of government is somehow anything besides murder.
I’m just applying Occam’s razor to this. You’re making terribly convoluted arguments about how theft isn’t theft if there isn’t a government around to see the theft and call it theft, and that the same applies for killing somebody. But it’s totally different for rape for no apparent reason, and on and on and on. I’m saying taking peoples’ shit against their will is theft.
It would be if I hadn’t explained my reasoning. If you keep ignoring explanations for reasoning and insisting you’re applying Occam’s razor, you’ll betray a fundamental lack of understanding of said razor.
Okay–and what constitutes “wrongful”? If I insist that taxes are just, then they’re by definition not theft.
No…because you don’t have to do any of the things that would get you imprisoned. You don’t have to live in the U.S. You don’t have to earn money here. You don’t have to buy items that have sales tax charged.
If you do these things, then you pretty much agree to pay the taxes. But you don’t have to.
To say that “taxes is theft” is as dumb as saying “employment is slavery.” I don’t want to go to work for my boss; I don’t enjoy it. I’d rather stay home and watch TV. But since I like having a paycheck, I do what I “don’t want to” do, and I put up with all the workplace b.s.
I’m “enslaved” to exactly the same degree (none!) that taxes are “stolen” from the taxpayers.
edited: too rude.
Read what I said and you’ll know the answer to your question.
You didn’t explain your reasoning.
In post 106 I asked:
[QUOTE=Waymore]
If somebody is forced to have sex while living in a state of anarchy, is it or is it not rape?
[/QUOTE]
In post 110 you answered:
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
It is.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not an explanation.
So let’s break this out in detail so we’re on the same page.
You’ve claimed:
- Taking another person’s property is only theft when it happens in the presence of a government.
- Killing a person is only murder when it happens in the presence of a government.
- Rape is rape, even if it happens without the presence of a government.
Why is rape different than theft or murder?
Something isn’t just because you insist it is so. Besides, we’re not debating whether or not taxes are just. We’re debating whether on not taxes are theft. Two different issues.
How about you just answer the question? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Taxes aren’t forced? Are you seriously claiming that?
Not quite: private property is only private property in the presence of a government. Private property isn’t the only way to determine who may use resources; it’s an artificial construct of the government.
No, they’re not different. “Wrongful” is a key part of the definition of theft. If taxes are not wrongful, they’re not theft. They’re not different issues at all.
Probably because other leftist policies resonate with them. Why are “the right” trying so hard to get votes from racists? This is a fun game!
Some of them probably are. Some professors and administrators oppose these efforts. What does that tell you?
The correct answer is of course, libertarians.
To an extent. But generally libertarian candidates are just Republicans who want to legalize pot.
Private property predates government.
You didn’t answer the question. What makes rape different than murder or theft?
Theft is taking another person’s property against his or her will. Sometimes it’s justified to commit theft, such as the example of a hungry person stealing a loaf of bread. It’s still theft.
Are you unfamiliar with the idea of paying for things? What happens if you don’t pay your electricity bill? Taxes are just a cost like any other. In this case it’s the price of living in a functional society governed by the principles of democracy. Your inability to see this may be amusing but it’s not the problem of the majority of the electorate who wish to live in civilization. I’m sorry that civilization isn’t working out for you, but no one is forcing you to be part of it. You’re free to go live someplace where there are no taxes, like an uninhabited desert island. Trust me, no one will stop you. Another tax-free option is taking up the exciting career of being a sociopathic homeless bum.
Paying for good and services you’ve voluntarily contracted for is fine. Participation in the tax system is not voluntary.
I know it’s great fun to be snide. And hey, you’re right, I could go live on a desert island, or build a tree house one the moon, or any number of other ludicrous ideas that have zero plausibility in reality. But that attitude is at base just dismissing an obvious objection to the system we live under, i.e. it’s based on force and coercion.
If you’re best rebuttal to that objection is essential telling me “too bad”, then it just shows you think like a good serf and you find it funny that I don’t.
I explained why in post 105. Again, property rights are enormously complex. Rape isn’t.
I’ll modify my position this much: given certain clear examples of behavior in pre-government societies, I’ll concede that “theft” works for them, in the same way that “rape” works for other behaviors.
But the behavior you label as theft–taking property against someone’s will–is not always labeled theft, and it’s not something that’s always considered theft in both government and non-government circumstances. Take three cases:
- Bob puts a fence around a field, grows potatoes in it, takes care of them all year. Just before harvest, Sally comes along in the night, digs up all the potatoes, and keeps them for herself, leading to Bob’s starvation. This would count as theft under just about any society, whether there is or is not a government.
- Bob puts a fence around a forest and declares it thereby his land, following Locke’s rules of ownership. Sally, accustomed to gathering mushrooms on this land, hops the fence and gathers mushrooms there. Bob didn’t plan to pick those mushrooms himself, but it pisses him off that someone would hop his fence. Under lots of modern societies, this is considered theft; under lots of non-governmental societies, it’s not.
- Bob tells everyone who lives within a hundred miles of him that they have to pay him four percent of every transaction they make, or else he’ll throw them in prison. Under a non-governmental society, this probably would count as theft. Under a governmental society, it wouldn’t.
But let’s come back to the central point. I’m gonna quote that same text again:
No. Theft has two different possible definitions, which you’re conflating here:
- The unlawful taking of property; or
- The wrongful taking of property.
Stealing a loaf of bread to avoid starvation is unlawful but possibly not wrongful; according to the first definition, it’s theft.
A person in a nongovernment society who steals all someone’s potatoes, leaving them to starve, has committed an act that’s wrongful but not unlawful (since there are no laws). This, remember, is how I’m modifying my position. It’s theft according to the second definition.
But if the government is collecting taxes according to the law, it’s not theft according to the first definition. And if the government is justified in its taxation, it’s not theft according to the second definition.
Your idea that an act which is neither unlawful nor wrongful may be labeled theft is unsupported; it’s an idiosyncratic definition that you’ve invented to serve your argument.
Which brings us, finally, back to rape. There is no such thing as justified rape. Every act which is labeled rape according to the law is also a wrongful act. So we can’t compare the government’s role in labeling rape to the government’s role in labeling theft: one of them is a terrible thing to do no matter the law, whereas the other is, in some situations, made taboo only by the law.
I’m not a serf; I’m a land-owner. You’re using a technical term incorrectly. That’s really bad debate technique. It’s a form of contumely. In fact, it’s also barratry.
( 
)
In post 105 you wrote:
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Rape isn’t. I don’t think this is analogous. Ownership of one’s body is not the normal justification for forbidding rape; rather, it’s the extreme trauma that rape entails.
[/QUOTE]
-
Would forcing somebody to have sex against his or her will be permissible if it didn’t entail extreme trauma?
-
Do you object to the notion of an individual owning his or her own body?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
- Bob puts a fence around a field, grows potatoes in it, takes care of them all year. Just before harvest, Sally comes along in the night, digs up all the potatoes, and keeps them for herself, leading to Bob’s starvation. This would count as theft under just about any society, whether there is or is not a government.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
2) Bob puts a fence around a forest and declares it thereby his land, following Locke’s rules of ownership. Sally, accustomed to gathering mushrooms on this land, hops the fence and gathers mushrooms there. Bob didn’t plan to pick those mushrooms himself, but it pisses him off that someone would hop his fence. Under lots of modern societies, this is considered theft; under lots of non-governmental societies, it’s not.
[/QUOTE]
This is example misses the point. I’m not arguing that there are no unambiguous cases of ownership. I am arguing that there are cases where ownership is not in question, as in your first example, and to take that property by force is theft, in or out of a state of anarchy.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
3) Bob tells everyone who lives within a hundred miles of him that they have to pay him four percent of every transaction they make, or else he’ll throw them in prison. Under a non-governmental society, this probably would count as theft. Under a governmental society, it wouldn’t.
[/QUOTE]
That’s theft under any circumstances. In fact, Bob sounds a lot like the government.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
But let’s come back to the central point. I’m gonna quote that same text again:
No. Theft has two different possible definitions, which you’re conflating here:
- The unlawful taking of property; or
- The wrongful taking of property.
[/QUOTE]
We’re getting somewhere. I’m arguing that taking another’s property by force is always theft, regardless of government presence. But what’s lawful is a matter of what is or isn’t in some statutory code in a particular society.
Sometimes things are lawful but wrong.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Stealing a loaf of bread to avoid starvation is unlawful but possibly not wrongful; according to the first definition, it’s theft.
[/QUOTE]
Theft is always wrong. But sometimes the alternative to theft is more wrong.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Your idea that an act which is neither unlawful nor wrongful may be labeled theft is unsupported; it’s an idiosyncratic definition that you’ve invented to serve your argument.
[/QUOTE]
See above.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Which brings us, finally, back to rape. There is no such thing as justified rape. Every act which is labeled rape according to the law is also a wrongful act. So we can’t compare the government’s role in labeling rape to the government’s role in labeling theft: one of them is a terrible thing to do no matter the law, whereas the other is, in some situations, made taboo only by the law.
[/QUOTE]
I have no dispute with any of the above. Never argued any of that. I’ve argued that any and all instances of taking another’s property by force is theft, including taxes.
Yeah, I’m aware of what you’re arguing. But that’s not the definition of theft that’s commonly used; it’s one you appear to have made up. I see no purpose to making up this definition except that it enables you to call taxes “theft.”
Now, you’re welcome to make up your own definitions. I’m a super duper descriptivist, after all. And if your only point is that by your idiosyncratic definition of theft, that very few other people use, taxes are theft–in that case, I have no disagreement with you. By the same reasoning, I consider taxes to be bananas, given my definition of “bananas” as “things you give to the government in exchange for services.”
You have conceded, in post 136 that:
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I’ll modify my position this much: given certain clear examples of behavior in pre-government societies, **I’ll concede that “theft” works for them, **in the same way that “rape” works for other behaviors.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding added. You wrote that theft can in fact take place without the presence of government. Yet your whole argument in our exchange was first stated by you in post 64:
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
But the whole idea of theft is meaningless outside of a governmental context
[/QUOTE]
Your statements in posts 64 and 136 contradict.
As for my definition being idiosyncratic, you’re wrong.
I noticed you didn’t answer the questions I asked in post 138. Allow me to ask them again.
-
Would forcing somebody to have sex against his or her will be permissible if it didn’t entail extreme trauma?
-
Do you object to the notion of an individual owning his or her own body?