Followup on taxes = theft

[CoccoBill]

I just don't think anybody would make this argument for anything that isn't government. Extract the government from the equation and suddenly everybody would be saying how wrong it is to say "an entity has been delegated to take from some for the common good" or "consent is given implicitly by inaction".

I mean, you can put that logic onto just about anything and find that nobody uses it. Where are the people who say that a person can give sexual consent just by being in a certain place? Where are the people who say that smart and/or hardworking people have to take worse jobs for the common good of less smart or less hardworking people to have better jobs?

I'm not aware of a common agreement that being in a certain place is sexual consent. I am aware of a common agreement that there are a government and their code of laws.

This arguing over the semantics of a word is not very productive. If we define theft as a legal term, taxation is not theft. If we define theft as a moral term, it's perhaps more correct, since morals are more or less personal and arbitrary. Either way, it doesn't change anything. The key point is that without the common agreements that define eg. theft, taxation and ownership, theft is whatever anyone personally thinks is theft. Rake is theft to an online poker player, call the cops.

What I would like to hear is Renton's and your comments on JKDS's point, that without a government there's no ownership.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Question: what's the endgame for the position that theft exists only as a legal concept?

Holding a position that is in line with observed reality.

Wouldn't that mean some pretty unconscionable things? It's more than just might is right, it's might is moral.

I thought you said morality has nothing to do with this.

Anyway...
Morality is subjective. History shows us that, if nothing else, human understanding of morality is dynamic. What is considered moral at one time and place is considered immoral at another time or another place. It seems like hubris to assert that the morality we hold in our time and place is somehow more permanent than any other observed.

When people disagree, it is often (if not always) the case that might determines the outcome.

It would mean that our beliefs, any of them, are not valid without the law.

This is absurd. What people believe has no necessary relation to reality.

There's a great quote from the movie "Second Hand Lions" that goes like this:
"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in."

It would mean that we are agents of the law instead of what I suspect most philosophers would claim in that the law is meant as an agent of the people. This sounds like a sci-fi dystopia to me.

Welcome to being a grown-up. The world is complicated and we inherited a bunch of bad decisions.
"Most philosophers" have said enough bone-headed stuff to draw suspicion on any claims they make.

We also get to live in an age which has unprecedented access to information and knowledge. No prior generation has had anything near what we take for granted. So there's ups and downs.

[JKDS]

Do you see why this isn't a compelling argument to me? I don't disagree with you if we're using exclusively a law framework. But I'm not talking about legal theft but the philosophical concept.

I do, but I dont think your stance can be supported. For example

By "actually exists" you're referring to one endorsed by the law. I'm referring to the interpretations of theft that we all subjectively hold for all aspects of our lives except for the one exception of government. It isn't by the law that anybody feels "this is mine and it would be wrong if somebody took it". My agenda is to show why we use that sentiment for virtually all things yet we abandon it with regards to government.

We dont all hold the same interpretations of theft. The only reason it appears that way on FTR is because we are all from countries that, at minimum, started with the same legal system; the English Common Law. We each have very similar views of what property ownership is, and what theft is, because thats what the common law of the land was. It goes further than that though, as most of the people in these 'english' countries are Christian, and the 8th commandment says not to steal. (Many religious rules are actually laws, so much so that they are indistinguishable from actual laws. Christinaity even more so than most). So when you say we all subjectively hold the same things, its not much of a surprise. The law has told us we have these rights, and that its wrong to steal.

But we dont ALL hold the same views, and thats why subjective-property rights fail. In the United States, we say that we have a legal right to make something novel and unique, and then prevent others from copying it for 20 years (patents). This is a property right. Many other countries have similar rules, but not all of them. In fact, many countries wouldnt recognize your right at all. Thus while you own the work and the idea in America, you have no recourse if someone else "steals" that idea in a different country. However, the people in that country wouldnt consider it stealing, and may even balk at the idea that you could even own the invention in the first place.

Closer to home, many people who torrent movies or music dont consider what they do to be stealing. I would disagree, but they dont recognize that.

I agree that everyone has an idea regarding ownership. My view correlates identically with the law of the land, and if there are any loopholes I decide them in my favor. But there are people who believe otherwise, and believe they own more, or less, than this view. Property law, and theft, are constructs that deal with this problem. They create an objective basis for ownership. Whether people agree with this basis is completely irrelevant though. A theif may believe he has a rightful claim to property just because he wants it more than someone else, but his non-acceptance of current property law is irrelevant. His subjective feeling isnt factored in at all. Its whats objective that matters with property, but the only objective rules regarding property ownership are laws.

To be clear, I am not denying this. I am not making a legal argument. I'm making a moral and conceptual one. I don't see the relevance of the law to this.

I assert that you cannot have property rights without law. It is irrelevant where that law comes from (a huge government, a small government, a religion, a family, or a negotiated decision from several businesses), there is no right to own without recognized rights.

Without law, "ownership" falls into just possession and control...and as soon as someone else possesses and controls something, they own it. Whether that be by violence, deceit, or whatever.

You'd probably technically do away with property rights but not the concept of property. I'm appealing to the concept and the logic typically used to describe theft and justify taxation.

Property exists subjectively, I agree. Its the concept of ownership and theft that require government. I can scream from the mountaintops that something is mine all that I want, it doesnt make it so unless there is some law granting me that right.

I disagree. I used to believe this back when I wasn't a libertarian.

I think we care about the logic of it. In practice, all sorts of end runs can be made around taxation to say it isn't theft, but if the logic is fully deconstructed it turns into a situation where theft actions are justified for social contract purposes.

I didnt mean for that to be a personal attack, and hope it wasnt taken as so. But there is no denying that theft is an emotionally charged concept, and calling something theft has a strong effect on people.

I have no idea what you're asking me to prove. This is conceptual, philosophical, logical stuff. I wouldn't know where to start to prove anything.

I'm just asking for any definition of theft or ownership, which does not require law in some form. It isnt possible though. Without law, all we have is possession and control...things that are easily undermined. A world full of Rocket Racoons is a world without ownership and without theft.

My entire argument relies on this assertion, that theft cannot exist without law. It cant exist without some objective rules governing ownership that are universally held. I believe that this must be the case, because otherwise there is no point in claiming something is theft. If you see that you're being taxed and yell "thief", and the government sees that you earned a paycheck without paying taxes and yells "thief", what was the point of yelling thief at all?

Cool. I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about the logic each individual uses to justify taxation. The type of point I hope to convey is that if we were to imagine some entity other than our own government engaging in taxation, we would be super not okay with it and call it all sorts of things like theft and extortion. As mentioned before, the appeal to a social contract is an acknowledgement that taxation is an immoral thing akin to theft and extortion but is okay in the scope of the social contract common good ideal.

I agree, but its irrelevant. It is only the government that has the power to tax, so of course it is unconscionable for another entity to do it.

Although, if a business were to impose a tax anyway, and enforce such taxing, the correct term would probably be extortion (this single point is purely semantics). But...thats only because we have laws against extortion.

Anyway, the reason taxation isnt theft is because both are laws, and both were made by government. When you live under a government, you dont get to choose which laws to follow. You say that theft is some universal thing, but it only exists when you have a recognized right to own. That right comes from law, and taxation is an exception to it.

----

Side note: my fiance is a libertarian. The eerie thing is its possible he has control of Wuf/Renton's account, because he tends to respond identically to the points I raise.

[wufwugy]

I'm not aware of a common agreement that being in a certain place is sexual consent. I am aware of a common agreement that there are a government and their code of laws.

Extend your rationale about a lack of a common agreement on being in a certain place as sexual consent. By analogy, if 98% of people thought that sexual consent is given when at a man's house past 11:00, doesn't your rationale mean that you would agree? But the thing is that you won't agree with this hypothetical. How is this hypothetical different from your defense of the common agreement of government?

Holding a position that is in line with observed reality.

Huh.

Let's get real fundamental about it: let's say you're the second to last person alive. There is no law anymore. You're alone in the woods playing the bongos and the other last person alive shows up. He forces you against your will and takes you to his cave. You feel like your body is yours, not his. You feel like he abducted you. You have just been something stolen. Voila, theft exists without law.

Welcome to being a grown-up. The world is complicated and we inherited a bunch of bad decisions.
"Most philosophers" have said enough bone-headed stuff to draw suspicion on any claims they make.

Wait, isn't that you agreeing that it's wrong to think of people as agents of the law?

[wufwugy]

We dont all hold the same interpretations of theft. The only reason it appears that way on FTR is because we are all from countries that, at minimum, started with the same legal system; the English Common Law. We each have very similar views of what property ownership is, and what theft is, because thats what the common law of the land was. It goes further than that though, as most of the people in these 'english' countries are Christian, and the 8th commandment says not to steal. (Many religious rules are actually laws, so much so that they are indistinguishable from actual laws. Christinaity even more so than most). So when you say we all subjectively hold the same things, its not much of a surprise. The law has told us we have these rights, and that its wrong to steal.

But we dont ALL hold the same views, and thats why subjective-property rights fail. In the United States, we say that we have a legal right to make something novel and unique, and then prevent others from copying it for 20 years (patents). This is a property right. Many other countries have similar rules, but not all of them. In fact, many countries wouldnt recognize your right at all. Thus while you own the work and the idea in America, you have no recourse if someone else "steals" that idea in a different country. However, the people in that country wouldnt consider it stealing, and may even balk at the idea that you could even own the invention in the first place.

Closer to home, many people who torrent movies or music dont consider what they do to be stealing. I would disagree, but they dont recognize that.

I agree that everyone has an idea regarding ownership. My view correlates identically with the law of the land, and if there are any loopholes I decide them in my favor. But there are people who believe otherwise, and believe they own more, or less, than this view. Property law, and theft, are constructs that deal with this problem. They create an objective basis for ownership. Whether people agree with this basis is completely irrelevant though. A theif may believe he has a rightful claim to property just because he wants it more than someone else, but his non-acceptance of current property law is irrelevant. His subjective feeling isnt factored in at all. Its whats objective that matters with property, but the only objective rules regarding property ownership are laws.

You're describing why the law has utility as a tool to determine ownership. I don't disagree.

I assert that you cannot have property rights without law. It is irrelevant where that law comes from (a huge government, a small government, a religion, a family, or a negotiated decision from several businesses), there is no right to own without recognized rights.

Without law, "ownership" falls into just possession and control...and as soon as someone else possesses and controls something, they own it. Whether that be by violence, deceit, or whatever.

For the most part I won't disagree that property rights wouldn't exist without law (even though we probably would still all agree that humans have inherent property rights to their own bodies), because pretty much anytime we talk about a right, we're talking about something designated by law.

The problem is that once we allow the law to determine the concept of property in the first place, we've made it the moral authority and we've put ourselves in a position where the law is always right even when it's not.

I'm just asking for any definition of theft or ownership, which does not require law in some form.

Definition of theft on a conceptual level: taking something that is not yours without permission and without intent to return it.

The law is the primary tool we use to define what "yours" is, but it is not where we get the concept of "yours". There is no need for objectivity in order to validate the concept since it can be held on an individual basis. However, objectivity is needed if laws or norms are constructed around a concept. My point has been an appeal to the subjective, individual rationale, not objective constructs for a functioning society.

I keep bringing back my original point partly because I honestly don't know if I have much to say about the law itself. My point about taxation being theft is an appeal to the subjective rationales that most people use to describe theft.

It isnt possible though. Without law, all we have is possession and control...things that are easily undermined. A world full of Rocket Racoons is a world without ownership and without theft.

My entire argument relies on this assertion, that theft cannot exist without law. It cant exist without some objective rules governing ownership that are universally held. I believe that this must be the case, because otherwise there is no point in claiming something is theft. If you see that you're being taxed and yell "thief", and the government sees that you earned a paycheck without paying taxes and yells "thief", what was the point of yelling thief at all?

What about Renton's earlier claim that where he lives the law doesn't matter on the topic yet people still have similar views of ownership just on norms? Of course, other stuff you say suggests that you don't disagree with this, but still, that's different than law.

I agree, but its irrelevant. It is only the government that has the power to tax, so of course it is unconscionable for another entity to do it.

What makes it unconscionable for a different entity to tax? Is it because some people might not agree with it?

Side note: my fiance is a libertarian. The eerie thing is its possible he has control of Wuf/Renton's account, because he tends to respond identically to the points I raise.

I literalol'd.

Don't forget to let the cat out. And tomorrow's movie night.

[wufwugy]

I am aware of a common agreement that there are a government and their code of laws.

I said something to this earlier but deleted it because it was wrong. Let me rephrase.

The common agreement you refer to is the most common agreement. But there other common agreements held by minorities that get crushed beneath the heel of the majority common agreement. What is it about a majority common agreement that it is the right agreement; whereas a minority common agreement is not? I understand the utility in a society that functions by majority decision, but I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about the rationale for why a position has moral authority over people who do not agree with it because it has more backers than dissenters. Would this not be like saying that because most Americans are Christian, they have the moral right to impose Christianity on all Americans?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Let's get real fundamental about it:

What have we been up to this part?

let's say you're the second to last person alive. There is no law anymore. You're alone in the woods playing the bongos and the other last person alive shows up. He forces you against your will and takes you to his cave.

This is, again, absurd.

Now you're saying that kidnapping and abduction is theft. Which, from your conceptualized perspective, they are. From that perspective, I agree. It's just not a perspective that represents actual reality.

Violence exists. Nature is a killing machine. Well over 99.9999(keep on with the 9's)% of the universe is fatally hostile to any conceivable form of life. Classifying the source of the violence as being unique because it came from a human is a rather arbitrary distinction to make for a doomed species.

You feel like your body is yours, not his. You feel like he abducted you. You have just been something stolen.

I can't really understand the hubris to assume you know how I (or anyone besides yourself and closest loved ones) feel. Even if that is how I feel (which it likely isn't), I am not representative of 100% of all of humans and how they feel. Clearly in your example, there is a moral gray area where exactly half the population believes one thing is "right" and the other half believes the other thing is "right."

Voila, theft exists without law.

Yes, by your conceptualized definitions. The ones that everyone keeps asking you to explain, yet you keep tossing metaphors where definitions belong.

BUT
No, by any definitions which allow for nuance between similar ideas. Complex ideas may need complex understanding.

Wait, isn't that you agreeing that it's wrong to think of people as agents of the law?

I would never say that it's wrong for anyone to think anything. So, no, I'm not agreeing with that.

IDK exactly what you mean by agent of _____ .
From what I gathered from your context, I think it's both, in a feedback loop. People compose the gov't. People make laws. People enforce laws. People choose which laws to follow. People are punished for not following laws.

I believe that for every right there is an associated responsibility.

[wufwugy]

Now you're saying that kidnapping and abduction is theft. Which, from your conceptualized perspective, they are. From that perspective, I agree. It's just not a perspective that represents actual reality.

You agree with the concept yet you don't agree that it represents reality? That's like saying you don't agree with the concept.

I am not talking about theft in an exclusively legal manner. In reality, theft is not an exclusively legal thing.

Violence exists. Nature is a killing machine. Well over 99.9999(keep on with the 9's)% of the universe is fatally hostile to any conceivable form of life. Classifying the source of the violence as being unique because it came from a human is a rather arbitrary distinction to make for a doomed species.

Dogs can steal things too. Sometimes they know they did it and they're sorry before the victim even finds out.

I can't really understand the hubris to assume you know how I (or anyone besides yourself and closest loved ones) feel. Even if that is how I feel (which it likely isn't), I am not representative of 100% of all of humans and how they feel. Clearly in your example, there is a moral gray area where exactly half the population believes one thing is "right" and the other half believes the other thing is "right."

Dude it's a hypothetical.

Sorry for assuming you believe your body is yours.

Yes, by your conceptualized definitions. The ones that everyone keeps asking you to explain, yet you keep tossing metaphors where definitions belong.

I've been defining and I must say it's not every day somebody gets mad at use of metaphors in an attempt to illuminate the meaning of something.

IDK exactly what you mean by agent of _____ .
From what I gathered from your context, I think it's both, in a feedback loop. People compose the gov't. People make laws. People enforce laws. People choose which laws to follow. People are punished for not following laws.

I believe that for every right there is an associated responsibility.

The law is meant to serve the people, not the other way around.

[CoccoBill]

I said something to this earlier but deleted it because it was wrong. Let me rephrase.

The common agreement you refer to is the most common agreement. But there other common agreements held by minorities that get crushed beneath the heel of the majority common agreement. What is it about a majority common agreement that it is the right agreement; whereas a minority common agreement is not? I understand the utility in a society that functions by majority decision, but I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about the rationale for why a position has moral authority over people who do not agree with it because it has more backers than dissenters. Would this not be like saying that because most Americans are Christian, they have the moral right to impose Christianity on all Americans?

Welcome to democracy. Depends whose morals you mean by "moral right", since as said a couple times already, morals vary and change, over time and people to people. According to many American Christians, the answer would seem to be yes, my personal morals would strongly disagree. Personally I'm not a big fan of democracy but the thing is though, that the "moral right" is ~always defined by those with the most power, be it a dictator, a military junta or a democratic majority.

You might like this if you haven't watched it yet:

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_...w_what_s_right

[wufwugy]

According to many American Christians, the answer would seem to be yes, my personal morals would strongly disagree. Personally I'm not a big fan of democracy but the thing is though, that the "moral right" is ~always defined by those with the most power, be it a dictator, a military junta or a democratic majority.

If I didn't know any better, this would read like you agree with me.

If it is personally wrong to you for Christians to force you to be Christian because they have a moral majority, why is it right for supporters of taxation to tax dissenters of taxation because they have a moral majority?

[JKDS]

I can't make a big response, but even the idea that we own our own bodies is not universally held.

I also don't deny that some things are not so restricted by legal definition. Killings will always be killings, for example.

But somethings are purely legal, and theft is one of them. Even in your two person example of rape (body theft?), we see that there is no theft at all. The subjective view of ownership is irrelevant in that example, and only force controls.

[JKDS]

If I didn't know any better, this would read like you agree with me.

If it is personally wrong to you for Christians to force you to be Christian because they have a moral majority, why is it right for supporters of taxation to tax dissenters of taxation because they have a moral majority?

This doesn't seem like an argument about why taxes are theft anymore, but rather an argument about the morality or ethics of having a government entirely.

[CoccoBill]

If I didn't know any better, this would read like you agree with me.

If it is personally wrong to you for Christians to force you to be Christian because they have a moral majority, why is it right for supporters of taxation to tax dissenters of taxation because they have a moral majority?

Here's how to solve this:

Is taxation theft? No.
Does wufwugy think taxation is akin to theft and wrong according to his personal morals? Yes.

Same applies to your example. Christians have the "moral right" if they are the majority, since the majority (or rather, those with the most power, be it a dictator, a military junta or a democratic majority) defines what the morals are.

[a500lbgorilla]

Question: what's the endgame for the position that theft exists only as a legal concept? Wouldn't that mean some pretty unconscionable things? It's more than just might is right, it's might is moral. It would mean that our beliefs, any of them, are not valid without the law. It would mean that we are agents of the law instead of what I suspect most philosophers would claim in that the law is meant as an agent of the people. This sounds like a sci-fi dystopia to me.

Just for fun, I would say that your and my beliefs on a lot of things are invalid. You aren't a truth-divining engine, there's no survival benefit. If two people standing at the edge of a cliff take a step back, one because he's seen others fall and believes it will hurt him and the other because he fears angering the Gods, both survive just the same. You'll come to believe a lot of things based on standards other than True.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You agree with the concept yet you don't agree that it represents reality? That's like saying you don't agree with the concept.

Airplane - a vehicle which travels through a fluid by moving the fluid around to create motive force.
Submarine - a vehicle which travels through a fluid by moving the fluid around to create motive force.
Conceptually an airplane and a submarine are the same thing.

Therefore an airplane is exactly the same as a submarine...?

No.

I am not talking about theft in an exclusively legal manner. In reality, theft is not an exclusively legal thing.

Taking is not theft unless the taking is of someone else's property. You have not adequately defined the meaning of property such that the claimant of ownership is unambiguous.

Dogs can steal things too. Sometimes they know they did it and they're sorry before the victim even finds out.

Dogs' behavior is largely attributed to their anticipation of reward or reprimand from their favorite human, regardless of whether they understand why the human behaves so.

Police dogs are excellent at finding drugs, but police have ~50% chance of finding drugs in a car flagged by a police canine. The dog wants to please his holder more than he wants to find drugs. The dog doesn't care about drugs. The dog cares about making his handler reward him.

Dude it's a hypothetical.

Sorry for assuming you believe your body is yours.

Don't worry about it. Apology accepted.

The deeper point is that even if I did think a person's body is theirs to own, that is not the perspective of everyone.
Just because 2 people agree on something, that doesn't mean that they're correct.

I've been defining and I must say it's not every day somebody gets mad at use of metaphors in an attempt to illuminate the meaning of something.

I assure you that I didn't mean to make you mad. Sorry.

Metaphors are always incomplete. They're just a bit of help to bring someone to your ballpark of thought. A metaphor is an illogical statement by design. Equating two things which are the same isn't a metaphor, it's a definition. Maybe you'd be less mad if you stayed more on topic at this point. We are all in the same ballpark.

(Also, I'd wager this does happen every day. There are a lot of people making metaphors. Someone is bound to get mad.)

The law is meant to serve the people, not the other way around.

I think this is untrue because of the "not the other way around." I think that the law is made by people, and that the law is enforced by people. I think that people create a law which serves them, and then people serve the law.

I think it's a feedback loop. For every right there is a responsibility. For every thing the law provides, there is a demand. For every part of the law that serves you, there is created a part for you to serve.

[wufwugy]

I can't make a big response, but even the idea that we own our own bodies is not universally held.

I think it is, just not that's the only thing that it is. By definition, your body has to be yours. We'd have to find a way to void the ego or something to get past this.

Regardless, it doesn't matter.

But somethings are purely legal, and theft is one of them. Even in your two person example of rape (body theft?), we see that there is no theft at all. The subjective view of ownership is irrelevant in that example, and only force controls.

You're looking at this on the level of society. I'm looking at it on the individual. The concept of theft exists on the individual level regardless of what anybody says. The foundations behind these legal concepts exist without the law. Where does the law come from in the first place? It's from a categorization of morals, of things people believe on personal levels. Everybody believes it is possible for others to wrongfully take things from them; therefore they believe in theft. It's just not criminal theft because that requires a law. Call it philosophical theft, I guess.

This doesn't seem like an argument about why taxes are theft anymore, but rather an argument about the morality or ethics of having a government entirely.

It is that as well. My purpose was to get him to flesh out the reasoning he was using.

[wufwugy]

Here's how to solve this:

Is taxation theft? No.
Does wufwugy think taxation is akin to theft and wrong according to his personal morals? Yes.

Same applies to your example. Christians have the "moral right" if they are the majority, since the majority (or rather, those with the most power, be it a dictator, a military junta or a democratic majority) defines what the morals are.

So you think Christians have the moral right to force you to be Christian?

I'm impressed. That position is logically consistent with the position that the common majority have moral authority over minorities. It's also consistent with the theory of might is right. Hell, it even means if I were to invoke Godwin's Law now, the example that would do so would have been a morally right regime. Which makes me wonder, why did our great grandfathers try to stop that regime in the first place?

To be clear, if you believe that power or specific statistics determine morality, we'll never agree. So it's good to know that.

[wufwugy]

Just for fun, I would say that your and my beliefs on a lot of things are invalid. You aren't a truth-divining engine, there's no survival benefit. If two people standing at the edge of a cliff take a step back, one because he's seen others fall and believes it will hurt him and the other because he fears angering the Gods, both survive just the same. You'll come to believe a lot of things based on standards other than True.

Indeed.

To be clear, my taxation is theft position is an appeal to the subjective, not to truth. All I'm trying to do is get logical consistency. I'm not claiming it's right or wrong, just that I think if people deconstruct some of these things we take for granted, they'll find reason to think of them differently.

[wufwugy]

Airplane - a vehicle which travels through a fluid by moving the fluid around to create motive force.
Submarine - a vehicle which travels through a fluid by moving the fluid around to create motive force.
Conceptually an airplane and a submarine are the same thing.

Therefore an airplane is exactly the same as a submarine...?

No.

On some level, conceptually everything is the same as everything else. Clearly I'm not talking about that diluted of a definition.

Taking is not theft unless the taking is of someone else's property. You have not adequately defined the meaning of property such that the claimant of ownership is unambiguous.

It only has to be unambiguous when we have law. Since I'm not talking about the law, it doesn't matter what people subjectively think property is, just that they have a view in the first place.

I assure you that I didn't mean to make you mad. Sorry.

Metaphors are always incomplete. They're just a bit of help to bring someone to your ballpark of thought. A metaphor is an illogical statement by design. Equating two things which are the same isn't a metaphor, it's a definition. Maybe you'd be less mad if you stayed more on topic at this point. We are all in the same ballpark.

(Also, I'd wager this does happen every day. There are a lot of people making metaphors. Someone is bound to get mad.)

You didn't upset me. I thought you were the one getting mad at my using metaphors.

I think this is untrue because of the "not the other way around." I think that the law is made by people, and that the law is enforced by people. I think that people create a law which serves them, and then people serve the law.

I think it's a feedback loop. For every right there is a responsibility. For every thing the law provides, there is a demand. For every part of the law that serves you, there is created a part for you to serve.

While it is a feedback loop, when boiled down to its most base elements, the purpose of the law is as a reflection of people. Our laws are abstractions created by us, for us.

[a500lbgorilla]

The elephant in the room still stands: what is ownership outside of the legal context?

And the first answer is:

The concept of theft exists on the individual level regardless of what anybody says. The foundations behind these legal concepts exist without the law.

Ownership just is. Theft just is. Because...

Everybody believes it is possible for others to wrongfully take things from them; therefore they believe in theft.

Everybody agrees it just is.

Is this a satisfying answer for anyone? Have we reached philosphical bedrock? There is no below below these prime concepts?

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not trying to rigorously prove theft as a concept. But I am assuming that any serious person thinks wrongful taking is a thing, even if it's only subjective to them. I'm okay with using that assumption to try to appeal to peoples' rationale.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'll give the answer too. It's the ability to control.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not trying to rigorously prove theft as a concept. But I am assuming that any serious person thinks wrongful taking is a thing, even if it's only subjective to them. I'm okay with using that assumption to try to appeal to peoples' rationale.

Spoon said any thinking person, you say any serious person. I'm both thinking and at least serious enough for this discussion, and I'm asking what it means to own something. And the best you can come up with is, "well... you know. You get it."

[a500lbgorilla]

And once you recognize that you're taking ownership and theft for granted, you can begin to wonder how the concepts work in actual reality. Hint, under the frame-work of law established by the authority of gov'ts.

You want to believe that gov't have made some grand error, as if the natural law and universal sense of these ideas didn't influence the forms of gov't today.

inb4 status quo bias.

[wufwugy]

Spoon said any thinking person, you say any serious person. I'm both thinking and at least serious enough for this discussion, and I'm asking what it means to own something. And the best you can come up with is, "well... you know. You get it."

I have tried to avoid use of the word "own" for the same reason as "murder". They typically imply legal status.

That said, ignoring the law of it, when somebody feels like they own something, they feel that it is theirs, for whatever reason. If that thing is stolen from them, it isn't just that they feel that a law was broken, but something that was "theirs" was wrongfully taken.

It's the rationale that people use for this sentiment that I'm appealing to in order to apply it to government and taxation. It isn't by a law that people feel stolen from when they feel wrongfully taken from.

What I'd like to know is why anybody thinks the social contract is an idea in the first place if it wasn't for this logical issue. There's no need for a social contract if there is no perception of wrongful taking. Since the go-to for most people when confronted with the problem of taxation is "but the social contract", it implies acceptance that taxation is wrongful taking.

[a500lbgorilla]

I have tried to avoid use of the word "own" for the same reason as "murder". They typically imply legal status.

That said, ignoring the law of it, when somebody feels like they own something, they feel that it is theirs, for whatever reason. If that thing is stolen from them, it isn't just that they feel that a law was broken, but something that was "theirs" was wrongfully taken.

It's the rationale that people use for this sentiment that I'm appealing to in order to apply it to government and taxation. It isn't by a law that people feel stolen from when they feel wrongfully taken from.

Right, this point as been hit on before. This is rhetoric. You want people to feel the same way you do, doesn't matter what they think. You don't want them to get hung up on things that will keep them from feeling the way you want them to feel and you're using persuasive argument to achieve that. That's rhetoric.

[a500lbgorilla]

What I'd like to know is why anybody thinks the social contract is an idea in the first place if it wasn't for this logical issue. There's no need for a social contract if there is no perception of wrongful taking. Since the go-to for most people when confronted with the problem of taxation is "but the social contract", it implies acceptance that taxation is wrongful taking.

My go to is very simple. Ownership means control. Pick anything and I can walk you up the ladder to the gov't being in control. Why is the gov't in control? Because they won the last war that mattered around these parts and them's the spoils. That's why the 'social construct' exists. It's how we adapt.

You just don't want that to be the case. You want there to be a greater moral authority that we each share an insight into that can usurp the norms of the world today. And that ain't happening.

[wufwugy]

You want to believe that gov't have made some grand error, as if the natural law and universal sense of these ideas didn't influence the forms of gov't today.

I'm not saying that at all. I don't even know what natural law is. I'm not talking about a universal sense determining a truth.

I think the law is heavily influenced by morals. I don't think legal theft would exist if it wasn't for the moral sentiments of theft that people hold. I'm not even trying to say that by some legal definition, taxation is theft. I'm saying that by the logic that anybody I know uses to understand theft, taxation is suspiciously the same. The law is wholly irrelevant. If a group of people with bigger guns than you took your TV every month and gave you a microwave instead, you would call that theft. Taxation is that exact thing, except the people with the guns make it so their laws say their taking of your stuff is an exception.

Your response to this has always been that reality works by way of guys with the biggest guns making the rules. Well, okay. That could be totally true, but it isn't relevant to the logic that people use to define theft. It's like Stockholm's syndrome or something. Is the argument that all it takes for something that was once wrongful taking is for the person who took it to be powerful enough to say it's not wrongful taking? I want to point this out because I know almost nobody agrees with it, yet when people argue for government and taxation, they defend it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The point is that the person from whom was taken feels one way and the person whom did the taking feels another way.
Both feel entitled to control of {the whatever} and that the other's control is theft.

Why does one side automatically get to be correct by assumption? Is it the notion that one had control of the thing at the beginning of the premise? By what logical appeal is this historical control justified as present control?

[wufwugy]

Right, this point as been hit on before. This is rhetoric. You want people to feel the same way you do, doesn't matter what they think. You don't want them to get hung up on things that will keep them from feeling the way you want them to feel and you're using persuasive argument to achieve that. That's rhetoric.

It is rhetoric, but I'm not wanting people to feel the way I do regardless of what they think. I want them to think what I do and I want them to do that by deconstruction of their own logic. And honestly, if after deconstruction, they don't think what I do, I'm not bothered. I just want logical investigation because I think that is one of the things that moves the world forward.

You just don't want that to be the case. You want there to be a greater moral authority that we each share an insight into that can usurp the norms of the world today. And that ain't happening.

I don't want that. There isn't a moral authority. Morals are made up.

When it walks like a duck and talks like a duck yet somebody calls it a frog, I'm looking for ways to get him to see the duck.

[a500lbgorilla]

If a group of people with bigger guns than you took your TV every month and gave you a microwave instead, you would call that theft.

edit wrong quote

I'd be pissed off and I'd tell everyone it was theft. Calling it theft is trying to get other people to sympathize with me and act on my behalf. It's like a child crying for help, but instead I'm an adult attempting a more sly tactic.

Taxation is that exact thing, except the people with the guns make it so their laws say their taking of your stuff is an exception

And now you're trying to cry theft and get everyone to sympathize with you. But under any scrutiny the justification of these emotions falls apart. As can be seen through this entire thread.

Your response to this has always been that reality works by way of guys with the biggest guns making the rules. Well, okay. That could be totally true, but it isn't relevant to the logic that people use to define theft.

There is no logic. They just call it theft. You've made this point a half dozen times. Everyone just recognizes theft. Everyone just understands it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Morals are made up.

I was angling for a way to bring this up, but it is a super weird conversation when everyone agrees on this.

[wufwugy]

Why does one side automatically get to be correct by assumption?

They don't. I'm not arguing for a legal definition of theft by subjective feeling. I'm looking to get people to investigate the rationale they use for theft and taxation and implanting them on each other to see what's consistent.

There are many avenues to approach this. At this point it seems the rationale used to avoid an inconsistency in the belief that taxation is not theft is that theft is defined by the law. Which is fine. It usually takes a bunch of stepping stones and bunch of contrasts of rationale people use for different things in order to come full circle and illuminate the original issue.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The notion that everyone believes they own their own body is wrong.

I am living proof.

I believes in incarceration, and therefore clearly believe that I only "own" my body to the extent that I use it in a certain way. I can be jailed or even put to death if I use my body to perform certain actions. I support this use of force on other people within the confines of justice. I do not believe that anyone "owns" their body without caveat.

[a500lbgorilla]

Imagine if taxes did piss off so many people that this line of argument actually did spark a following. Like William Wallace in Braveheart, we could fight, and we could die, but they'll never have our Freedom!

[wufwugy]

I'd be pissed off and I'd tell everyone it was theft. Calling it theft is trying to get other people to sympathize with me and act on my behalf. It's like a child crying for help, but instead I'm an adult attempting a more sly tactic.



And now you're trying to cry theft and get everyone to sympathize with you. But under any scrutiny the justification of these emotions falls apart. As can be seen through this entire thread.



There is no logic. They just call it theft. You've made this point a half dozen times. Everyone just recognizes theft. Everyone just understands it.

Looks to me like you're saying that if the law doesn't recognize something with all elements of theft as theft, that makes it not theft.

Which, well, I guess I'm okay with having gotten that out of you. It's honestly as good of a thing I want to convey. It shows the logic being used is law determinism, and that the only reason taxation "isn't" theft is because the government says so.

I guess the next step is to question how the government's position on something can magically make it something else. I understand how they can use their might to control things, but it doesn't matter how many shirts you put on a duck, you can't turn it into Donald.

[MadMojoMonkey]

They don't. I'm not arguing for a legal definition of theft by subjective feeling. I'm looking to get people to investigate the rationale they use for theft and taxation and implanting them on each other to see what's consistent.

In what way does my question imply any legality whatsoever?

The point is that the person from whom was taken feels one way and the person whom did the taking feels another way.
Both feel entitled to control of {the whatever} and that the other's control is theft.

Why does one side automatically get to be correct by assumption? Is it the notion that one had control of the thing at the beginning of the premise? By what logical appeal is this historical control justified as present control?

If neither side get to be correct a priori, then how shall this dichotomy of opinions be resolved?

Both parties say they own the thing. Both parties say the other's posession is theft. Which one is correct?

What definitions are needed to resolve this, with or without any laws?

[a500lbgorilla]

Looks to me like you're saying that if the law doesn't recognize something with all elements of theft as theft, that makes it not theft.

Which, well, I guess I'm okay with having gotten that out of you. It's honestly as good of a thing I want to convey. It shows the logic being used is law determinism, and that the only reason taxation "isn't" theft is because the government says so.

I guess the next step is to question how the government's position on something can magically make it something else. I understand how they can use their might to control things, but it doesn't matter how many shirts you put on a duck, you can't turn it into Donald.

You don't even know what theft is!

[MadMojoMonkey]

The point is that no matter how much rilla cries theft, the ones taking his TV and giving him microwaves see his posession of a TV as theft.

Why does rilla's claim of ownership being taken from him trump the other guy's?

They are identical claims.

[wufwugy]

In what way does my question imply any legality whatsoever?



If neither side get to be correct a priori, then how shall this dichotomy of opinions be resolved?

Both parties say they own the thing. Both parties say the other's posession is theft. Which one is correct?

What definitions are needed to resolve this, with or without any laws?

These are legal questions. At least in the scope of how this thread has gone, they're legal.

I'm trying to not make any points about how society should organize. Just points looking to get examination of rationale.

[a500lbgorilla]

And you know that you don't know because you keep saying, "oh, everyone knows what theft is."

[wufwugy]

You don't even know what theft is!

You'll have to explain yourself.

[a500lbgorilla]

You'll have to explain yourself.

You said that the idea of theft exists outside of the legal framework. You've also said that people just 'get it' and that it's somehow described through peoples instinctive recognition of theft. Somehow, you've also said that you don't want to get into the idea of ownership because it's not important to the idea of theft.

None of this adds up.

Theft clearly requires ownership. You can't be coerced out of possession of something without first possessing it.

If you want to pretend that ownership exists as a understanding beyond words, great, I'm all about that kind of stuff but I rather think it doesn't. And that you don't want to put words to ownership, and want to describe theft as the emotive instinct people just get when they recognize theft shows you don't know up from down here.

[wufwugy]

And you know that you don't know because you keep saying, "oh, everyone knows what theft is."

I have acknowledged the definition you're using of theft and have extensively addressed it.

[a500lbgorilla]

I have acknowledged the definition you're using of theft and have extensively addressed it.

One more time for the cheap seats.

[a500lbgorilla]

The best part is that several people have already recognized what this entire discussion is about: You want people to not like taxes the same way that they don't like theft. And you missed.

[wufwugy]

and want to describe theft as the emotive instinct people just get when they recognize theft shows you don't know up from down here.

It's that as well as a legal concept.

How many examples do I have to give of situations with every element of theft except that there isn't a law saying so? At that point, I don't care to go any further. I don't know how to combat the belief that the law is magic.

Your argument applies for all sorts of other things. Like if the law says waterboarding isn't torture, by your argument, you're obligated to say waterboarding isn't torture, based exclusively on what the law says.

Law determinism is ABSURD. I would never imagine somebody would say "Oh yeah so the only reason such n such isn't theft is because the government says so. If the government didn't say anything it would totes be theft since it's exactly like theft in every other way. But oh wells I still think it's not theft because rah rah government."

[a500lbgorilla]

I guess the next step is to question how the government's position on something can magically make it something else. I understand how they can use their might to control things, but it doesn't matter how many shirts you put on a duck, you can't turn it into Donald.

I'll put it this way. You want theft to be some platonic ideal. There's some conception of theft that exists in abstraction that all real thefts can only be inspired by. I disagree. The gov't can make taxes unlike theft because the gov't possess that level of control over the societies they govern. They can tell all the small folk how to behave between one another and behave by a different standard themselves. That's the dirty truth of it.

Any further you want to walk from that dirty truth, recognize that you're just walking further away from the dirty truth.

[a500lbgorilla]

Law determinism is ABSURD.

Law determinism, might makes right, all these other things you keep throwing out there are walking away from the dirty truth in different directions.

[wufwugy]

I'll put it this way. You want theft to be some platonic ideal. There's some conception of theft that exists in abstraction that all real thefts can only be inspired by. I disagree. The gov't can make taxes unlike theft because the gov't possess that level of control over the societies they govern. They can tell all the small folk how to behave between one another and behave by a different standard themselves. That's the dirty truth of it.

Any further you want to walk from that dirty truth, recognize that you're just walking further away from the dirty truth.

True and I haven't argued otherwise.

It's not a question of how a tax entity can get away with it. It's a question of why people justify it on the abstract level. Doing that IMO is a necessary step to get people to make it harder for a tax entity to get away with it.

[wufwugy]

The best part is that several people have already recognized what this entire discussion is about: You want people to not like taxes the same way that they don't like theft. And you missed.

tbh i think this has been highly productive.

[a500lbgorilla]

True and I haven't argued otherwise.

It's not a question of how a tax entity can get away with it. It's a question of why people justify it on the abstract level. Doing that IMO is a necessary step to get people to make it harder for a tax entity to get away with it.

It's pretty easy to justify. Theft requires a legal framework. Without some overarching authority to define ownership and theft, the idea itself devolves into the hissing of reptile brains.

[a500lbgorilla]

tbh i think this has been highly productive.

I was pretty surprised when we managed to find a seemingly nonbullshit nugget at the bottom with this idea of extra-legal ownership.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How many examples do I have to give of situations with every element of theft except that there isn't a law saying so?

Just one.

[a500lbgorilla]

Is it theft? Has he broken some natural law? Will he be punished?

[MadMojoMonkey]

These are legal questions. At least in the scope of how this thread has gone, they're legal.

I'm trying to not make any points about how society should organize. Just points looking to get examination of rationale.

You are directing the flow of this thread more than anyone else. Redirect it into a non-legal context, if you believe it is possible.

Has this examination of rationale changed your original mindset?

If so, in what way?

[wufwugy]

Just one.

Already gave several.

You are directing the flow of this thread more than anyone else. Redirect it into a non-legal context, if you believe it is possible.

I've certainly tried that, but given it's one against three, I clearly haven't.

Has this examination of rationale changed your original mindset?

If so, in what way?

Tons. How does one go from rah rah government to naw naw government in the first place?

More specifically, on this particular topic I contrasted the logic used on theft and taxation and found the justification for taxation depends on an inconsistent view.

[wufwugy]

Is it theft? Has he broken some natural law? Will he be punished?

The funny thing is that if the law said this is stealing you would say it is stealing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Already gave several.

I just reread the thread and you haven't given one example which meets your stated criteria that stood up to scrutiny.

How many examples do I have to give of situations with every element of theft except that there isn't a law saying so?

If you can't define the concept of theft w/o using the concept of ownership, then you must provide a definition of ownership. You have avoided offering any definition of ownership aside from an individual's perception of their ownership. This definition leads to logical inconsistencies when we attempt to determine which party is the thief.

We need a logically consistent set of definitions to resolve this.

Or we need to abandon the assertion that this conversation is based on a logical understanding of anything in particular.

Specifically in your examples: You have yet to answer the fundamental question of how disputes are decided. Every case you've illustrated comes down to a dispute of ownership based on individual's perspectives.

I've certainly tried that, but given it's one against three, I clearly haven't.

All we want is clarity of terms. Once provided with clear definitions, then the argument is over. Your statement follows from the definitions or it does not. There are capable logicians in the group and even the incapable ones are interested in becoming more capable, so it should be painless.

Tons. How does one go from rah rah government to naw naw government in the first place?

IDK. People do strange things. People change their minds.

Why are you obfuscating? I.e. why are you answering a question with a question?

More specifically, on this particular topic I contrasted the logic used on theft and taxation and found the justification for taxation depends on an inconsistent view.

You found that? Wasn't that your opening premise?

What was the point you made in the OP, if not that?

[!Luck]

Family Guy Season 10 Episode 21 /thread

[wufwugy]

Family Guy Season 10 Episode 21 /thread

I would watch this episode, but I'm not sure if the government has defined visual viewing as "watching". So while I will visually view this episode with mine own eyes, I'm not sure if I will watch it.

[CoccoBill]

So you think Christians have the moral right to force you to be Christian?

Asked and answered (#159).

I'm impressed. That position is logically consistent with the position that the common majority have moral authority over minorities. It's also consistent with the theory of might is right. Hell, it even means if I were to invoke Godwin's Law now, the example that would do so would have been a morally right regime. Which makes me wonder, why did our great grandfathers try to stop that regime in the first place?

To be clear, if you believe that power or specific statistics determine morality, we'll never agree. So it's good to know that.

So you didn't watch the TED talk I linked?

[JKDS]

The problem with subjective theft is this:

You say, subjectively, that taxing you is theft.

The government then says, subjectively, that receiving a paycheck without paying taxes is theft.

The problem is that we have no natural resolution to this. The result is no different than mere name calling. I can subjectively belive someone is an asshole, but that doesn't make it so. Still, I'm free to believe it. Anyone can belive anything, though.

The real error of that is what it does to your argument. If taxes = theft only on the subjective level, then it's the same as saying taxes are rotten, or taxes are stupid. Subjectively, sure, they may be rotten or stupid. But what does it matter what I subjectively think about them?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I would watch this episode, but I'm not sure if the government has defined visual viewing as "watching". So while I will visually view this episode with mine own eyes, I'm not sure if I will watch it.

Really?? I mean, really, really?

Just a moment ago you were singing the praises of the civility of this thread, and now you're trolling it?

The only reason gov't is part of this discussion is because it has been stipulated that your definition of theft implied a definition of property which can only be granted by a gov't.
You said lolwat.
JKDS offered explanations of why the notion of property is meaningless unless takers can be coerced into giving back what they took.
You said, taking of other's possessions is older than rules.
I said lolwat (it did not jive with what I learned studying anthropology.)

It gets a bit fuzzy with rilla accusing you of proselytizing.

Then a bit of miscommunication where you thought I was mad. (Still not sure what could have sounded upset. I mean, you, of all people on FTR, know how I get when I'm upset with someone.)

Since then, most have stepped off the gov't thing except to reiterate JKDS's point.

You have put forth that ownership is perception. This has been shown to be a logically inconsistent definition, as it is ambiguous which party's identical claim to ownership prevails. So we need another definition. You have yet to make a counter point which defines property without a gov't (read: a coercing agency to enforce the conceit of ownership).

***
Are you aware that you've effectively called me insane, an idiot and put words in my mouth many times? Me and whomever may disagree with the factual nature of the title of the thread, that is. Never mind that we agree with you 98% of the way and have detailed reasons why, in this particular case, we don't agree on the final 2%. Never mind that you're not being called names.

Do you actually think JKDS, rilla, et. al. fit this bill of insane idiots?
Admittedly, I probably do, but I'm working on it.

Does this help you understand the issue of theft and taxation any differently to assume that those who disagree with you are intelligent, logical people? Do you honestly think that they "hold inconsistent views" and just need your enlightenment to see the error of their ways, as rilla was hinting at?


I can't speak for anyone else, but I actually want to follow your logic from top to bottom.

[a500lbgorilla]

I would watch this episode, but I'm not sure if the government has defined visual viewing as "watching". So while I will visually view this episode with mine own eyes, I'm not sure if I will watch it.

Well, yeah, watching implies brain activity.

[a500lbgorilla]

It seems like we're still stuck here:

Find a conception of theft (and by extension possession) that doesn't require a legal framework (and by extension a gov't).

But the gov't doesn't make us feel badly about theft. Whatever that is, that's theft.

Now, I'll even put forward why you need a gov't and its laws to have theft: because the gov't is powerful enough to hold up these human conceptions, to maintain a common set of rules for interaction, to allow for reasonable and practical possession. There are limits to this primal instinct for human interaction (probably that 144 threshold or somesuch) and beyond them the entire notion collapses.

So to me, it seems like you're saying that collecting taxes in a small tribe would be theft, so collecting taxes in a huge country should be too, and I don't think that's reasonable at all because of the natural, human dynamics which change when moving from one to the other.

[wufwugy]

Asked and answered (#159).

I believe you are holding views that contradict other views you hold, and I'm trying to get you to say it so you can see it.

So you didn't watch the TED talk I linked?

I did. I don't see the relevance.

[wufwugy]

The problem with subjective theft is this:

You say, subjectively, that taxing you is theft.

The government then says, subjectively, that receiving a paycheck without paying taxes is theft.

The problem is that we have no natural resolution to this. The result is no different than mere name calling. I can subjectively belive someone is an asshole, but that doesn't make it so. Still, I'm free to believe it. Anyone can belive anything, though.

The real error of that is what it does to your argument. If taxes = theft only on the subjective level, then it's the same as saying taxes are rotten, or taxes are stupid. Subjectively, sure, they may be rotten or stupid. But what does it matter what I subjectively think about them?

I completely agree. I'm not getting at a way to determine what theft is on the societal level. For that we need norms and laws.

I'm getting at a way people use their rationale to justify things. So far it seems we've gotten to the point where taxation has every element of theft that people use except that the law doesn't say so. I'm happy with getting to this point in the discussion, as I originally thought if we could get here, it would illuminate the special status people give to government to call right something we otherwise think is wrong.

[wufwugy]

It seems like we're still stuck here:

Find a conception of theft (and by extension possession) that doesn't require a legal framework (and by extension a gov't).

But the gov't doesn't make us feel badly about theft. Whatever that is, that's theft.

Now, I'll even put forward why you need a gov't and its laws to have theft: because the gov't is powerful enough to hold up these human conceptions, to maintain a common set of rules for interaction, to allow for reasonable and practical possession. There are limits to this primal instinct for human interaction (probably that 144 threshold or somesuch) and beyond them the entire notion collapses.

I don't think I disagree.

So to me, it seems like you're saying that collecting taxes in a small tribe would be theft, so collecting taxes in a huge country should be too, and I don't think that's reasonable at all because of the natural, human dynamics which change when moving from one to the other.

I think I see why you say this. I disagree in that I think the larger scale society dynamics don't change in ways that government is needed, but we've been over this quite a bit before.

That said, this description is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the behaviors we think constitute theft are the same behaviors that constitute taxation except with a few additions to taxation that ultimately seem to be why people don't see it as theft.

[wufwugy]

Really?? I mean, really, really?

Just a moment ago you were singing the praises of the civility of this thread, and now you're trolling it?

I've said I think you guys are getting into law determinism and might is right territory to inform abstract ideals. This was partly a joke for fun and partly an attempt to illuminate why that position leaves much to be desired.

The only reason gov't is part of this discussion is because it has been stipulated that your definition of theft implied a definition of property which can only be granted by a gov't.
You said lolwat.

If that was the case, I wouldn't even have started the thread. As it has turned out, I think we're talking about two different things.

JKDS offered explanations of why the notion of property is meaningless unless takers can be coerced into giving back what they took.
You said, taking of other's possessions is older than rules.

This is what I mean by talking about two different things. Everything JKDS says is pretty much right if we were discussing how a group of people function. The thing is I haven't been talking about that, or at least trying not to. It's a get out of jail free card because it means theft is only that which a group of people define it as, but that doesn't change what people believe to be theft isn't something solely created by law. We see this aspect of the idea in the many ways we see people feel or think theft outside of when the law has any say.

So, what I've been getting at is, not a "better" way of constructing a society, but an examination of how we describe theft and justify taxation because I think that would illuminate that we use the idea of government and social contract to justify something that we would otherwise think is wrong.

Then a bit of miscommunication where you thought I was mad. (Still not sure what could have sounded upset. I mean, you, of all people on FTR, know how I get when I'm upset with someone.)

Maybe that's it.

You have put forth that ownership is perception. This has been shown to be a logically inconsistent definition, as it is ambiguous which party's identical claim to ownership prevails. So we need another definition. You have yet to make a counter point which defines property without a gov't (read: a coercing agency to enforce the conceit of ownership).

To be clear, this is a different topic. If I were talking about a way for parties to determine theft in the real world, I wouldn't be saying it's subjective to each individual.

Are you aware that you've effectively called me insane, an idiot and put words in my mouth many times? Me and whomever may disagree with the factual nature of the title of the thread, that is. Never mind that we agree with you 98% of the way and have detailed reasons why, in this particular case, we don't agree on the final 2%. Never mind that you're not being called names.

I don't think I've called anybody names.

Do you actually think JKDS, rilla, et. al. fit this bill of insane idiots?
Admittedly, I probably do, but I'm working on it.

I think debate and rationalism is hard. I don't think you guys are saying irrational things, but I do think I haven't been able to say the things it would take to get you to see what I'm getting at. For example, I've realized that you and I are thinking of two different things with "concept of theft" even though I tried to use that as a way to cut through the confusion.

Does this help you understand the issue of theft and taxation any differently to assume that those who disagree with you are intelligent, logical people?

This group of people is far above average intelligence.

Do you honestly think that they "hold inconsistent views" and just need your enlightenment to see the error of their ways, as rilla was hinting at?

No. It's a debate.

[a500lbgorilla]

That said, this description is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the behaviors we think constitute theft are the same behaviors that constitute taxation except with a few additions to taxation that ultimately seem to be why people don't see it as theft.

But theft can't be about behavior alone.

[wufwugy]

But theft can't be about behavior alone.

A code that designates theft is what parties use to determine if it happened. That doesn't mean that if they didn't determine theft to happen that it didn't happen. An analogy would be if there was a law that said "wufwugies can't be murdered". So then you stabby stabby me and I die. Nobody says anything, but then some guy from out of town shows up and says "WTF that was murder. Technicalities don't change concepts."

We have a concept of the type of thing property is and the type of thing theft is. Regardless of what the law says, we can apply those concepts to other situations and evaluate them.

I'm curious what you think about the idea that theft, even on a conceptual or hypothetical level, only exists within the confines of a code. The reason I'm curious is because I don't think that idea jives with how people think of morality in most instances.

[wufwugy]

So you didn't watch the TED talk I linked?

I should add that I thought more about this and I think I see why you mentioned it.

His argument is compelling, but only as an organizing principle. Which I mostly agree with. I forget the specific names, but the types of logical fallacies that would be used if what he said was about a fundamental truth of morality includes appeals to large numbers.

[a500lbgorilla]

A code that designates theft is what parties use to determine if it happened. That doesn't mean that if they didn't determine theft to happen that it didn't happen. An analogy would be if there was a law that said "wufwugies can't be murdered". So then you stabby stabby me and I die. Nobody says anything, but then some guy from out of town shows up and says "WTF that was murder. Technicalities don't change concepts."

We have a concept of the type of thing property is and the type of thing theft is. Regardless of what the law says, we can apply those concepts to other situations and evaluate them.

Here's the fun part then, what are these concepts?

I'm curious what you think about the idea that theft, even on a conceptual or hypothetical level, only exists within the confines of a code. The reason I'm curious is because I don't think that idea jives with how people think of morality in most instances.

How else can you settle disputes? You'd need some form of adjudication if you want to be civilized or else some other decisive action.

And in order to create this code, you'll need to begin to define things like ownership. And you may want ownership to include stipulations that you own something by right and have no obligation to justify your use of it nor to protect your ownership of it. Well those things are going to require either communal agreement or some central communal authority to ensure.

It can't just be behavior-based because human behavior has a lot of faults, weaknesses, and loopholes. A community may behaviorally settle a theft-dispute by siding with the more charismatic party, or perhaps in siding always with the member representing the majority.

The best you can say is that we would take inspiration from our inborn sense of being wronged for having been stolen from, but our inborn senses have also inspired some pretty silly laws in the past.

[JKDS]

I completely agree. I'm not getting at a way to determine what theft is on the societal level. For that we need norms and laws.

I'm getting at a way people use their rationale to justify things. So far it seems we've gotten to the point where taxation has every element of theft that people use except that the law doesn't say so. I'm happy with getting to this point in the discussion, as I originally thought if we could get here, it would illuminate the special status people give to government to call right something we otherwise think is wrong.

You'll be unable to get me there, because I dont see any significance to that special status. At most, I see laws that have exceptions; but this is true of every law so its of little consequence to me.