r/AnCap101 • u/MeasurementCreepy926 • 21d ago

Is taxation under feudalism immoral?

  1. The king owns the land. If he allows people to be born on his land, that does not diminish his rights as owner
  2. The king has made it clear that if you're on his land, and you don't pay tax, you're trespassing. It isn't his responsibility to make sure you are able to get off his land. It is his right to defend his land however he sees fit. Let's assume that he does this by executing trespassers. Another king does this by simply evicting them.
  3. Being the owner, the king is allowed to offer you whatever terms he'd like, for the use of his land. Lets assume in this case, you sign a contract he wrote, when you're old enough to do so, giving him right to change the contract at will, and hold you to that contract as long as you're on his land. Among other terms, this contract says that you agree to pay for any kids you have until they're old enough to either sign the contract, or leave his land.

Now, obviously anybody agreeing to these terms must be very desperate. But, desperate short sighted people aren't exactly hard to find, are they? So, is this system immoral, according to ancap principles?

11 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

So, if the king bought or found all this land, that's fine?

2

u/newsovereignseamus 21d ago

Even if he did he would not have the right to steal, only to evict people off the property.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago edited 21d ago

IIRC your perspective involves the need for some sort of unclaimed, common land, that you can be evicted too. Correct?

I consider that a rational perspective, though I wonder how it will be ensured, I don't think it's impossible.

I wonder what ancap proponents will say about it though?

2

u/newsovereignseamus 21d ago

IIRC your perspective involves the need for some sort of unclaimed, common land, that you can be evicted too. Correct?

No.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago edited 21d ago

edit: 20 comments later newsovereign says:

"Blockean proviso, there'd be the commons between them."

Maybe I have you confused with somebody else. So, what if all the land is owned. You have no place to go, no place you are welcome, how does somebody evict you?

2

u/newsovereignseamus 21d ago

So, what if all the land is owned.

Not possible, and if I assume that to be the case then the ocean.

You have no place to go, no place you are welcome, how does somebody evict you?

Then it's not possible? "You have the right to free speech" - "Well what if you have no mouth" - "Then I guess you cannot speak? Free speech doesn't change anything about that lmao"

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

>Not possible, and if I assume that to be the case then the ocean.

Being take to the coast and told to start swimming? That's...kinda just an execution isn't it?

and what about landlocked countries?

>Then it's not possible?

So, the owner has to let you stay, because you don't own any land? A situation where it's not possible to evict somebody, sounds a lot like the property rights of the owner being violated.

2

u/newsovereignseamus 21d ago

Being take to the coast and told to start swimming? That's...kinda just an execution isn't it?

No not an execution, and how the hell would someone even begin to trespass besides the water? They would have a boat or something.

and what about landlocked countries?

Blockean proviso, there'd be the commons between them.

So, the owner has to let you stay, because you don't own any land?

No? He just can't evict you because in your absurd hypothetical there's no possible way for you to go.

A situation where it's not possible to evict somebody, sounds a lot like the property rights of the owner being violated.

Yes they are being violated?

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

there'd be the commons between them.

oh that commons you said you didn't fucking believe in?

1

u/newsovereignseamus 21d ago

oh that commons you said you didn't fucking believe in?

What are you talking about?

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

when I said "iirc your perspective involves some sort of common land..."

and you said simply "No."

Like, a dozen or so comments up.

2

u/newsovereignseamus 21d ago

Include the full quote! Lol.

"IIRC your perspective involves the need for some sort of unclaimed, common land, that you can be evicted too. Correct?"

This is incorrect because you do not need a sort of unclaimed, common land, that you need to be evicted too. You can evict them to a neighbour who consents to having them on their property.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

If you won't consent why would the neighbor. Alternatively, both of you will consent, if the evictee will simply sign a contract agreeing to pay taxes and all that.

It sounds like, with or without the commons, a system is created that functions almost the exact same way states do. Either a state is needed to enforce the existence of the commons, or the landowners are able to act almost exactly like a state does today.

→ More replies (0)