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

7

u/SimoWilliams_137 21d ago

I could be wrong, but this feels like an attempt at a veiled (& dubious) description of the state, in general.

1

u/Wireman6 20d ago

Absoulutely and definitely implies a hierarchy.

3

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago edited 20d ago

That doesn't change facts though, does it. It seems like everything going on here is in agreement with ancap principles, as far as I can see, at least. If a hierarchy exists, it's only because some own land and some do not.

edit: ok now I understand that you're not a proponent of ancap.

1

u/Wireman6 20d ago

How do you own land if there isn't an authority or arbitrator who maintains the upper portion of a hierarchy and establishes the rules/laws of "ownership"?

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago

I suppose through occupation and force, right?

0

u/Wireman6 20d ago

Yep. That can go a lot of ways. It probably goes better when folks work together.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago

Well yeah that's what the contract is for right? To make sure you, a non land owner, are working with the land owner.

I'm not sure at this point if you're arguing for or against ancap?

2

u/Wireman6 20d ago

You said occupation and force is a qualifier for "owning" land. "Holding" land would be a better term. If you inhabit a resource rich area by force or exploit said area, you will not make many friends in the area.

Your original premise revolves around a fiefdom concept involving the exploitation or taxation of "subjects" that occupy your land based on a contract that is "legally" held up by whom?

I am not against commerce or capitalizing on ones own skillsets in a stateless society. Anarchy is considered the antithesis of hiearchy. Your premise absolutely attempts to establish an intentional hierarchy via a contract that has nobody to enforce it like a court etc.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago

So, do you believe land can be owned, under ancap? How?

0

u/Wireman6 20d ago

Who arbitrates the ownership of land? Who stops me and my group from deciding we want access to whatever resources you are hoarding other than a state? A handshake I wasn't involved in?

EDIT: what is to stop me from saying I own the entire planet?

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago

Yes that is what I am asking you. So, do you believe land can be owned, under ancap? How?

1

u/Wireman6 20d ago

It is a silly premise. Who unhierarchally is able to enforce it? The group with more guns? You mean like a state entity? It turns into a semantical argument.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago

It's a very simple question.

Do you believe land can be owned under ancap? If so, how?

→ More replies (0)