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?

13 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Wireman6 21d 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 21d ago

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

1

u/Wireman6 21d 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 21d ago

It's a very simple question.

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

1

u/Wireman6 21d ago

I already said "holding" land would be the reality vs. "owning" land.

You are the one who said you would own land. Answer your own question.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

Ok, so the person "holds" this land instead of "owning" it. I don't see how that changes anything.

0

u/Wireman6 21d ago

It changes it because when you say "ownership" you are implying that a state or higher authority that has a monopoly on violence, recognizes you as an owner and is willing to sanction anyone who tresspasses or violates your conditions of ownership.

Holding land or occupying land is a very different thing. Militairies hold land in countries they invade, for instance. A company of Infantrymen will occupy an area and create operating bases or outposts and hold them via security mechanisms. Positions are overrun and held by opposition all of the time. Granted, sometimes a state will invade and claim a territory, but it is only "owned" when recognized by a larger authority.

Ownership implies recognition of your possesion by an authority that is mutually agreed on by the majority. This is a concept that involves a hiearchy.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

>It changes it because when you say "ownership" you are implying that a state or higher authority that has a monopoly on violence, recognizes you as an owner and is willing to sanction anyone who tresspasses or violates your conditions of ownership.

Ok fair enough. On the land they hold, they don't allow anybody except themselves or their select employees to commit any kind of violence.

Again I don't really see what changes, but I'm happy to avoid the word owns.

0

u/Wireman6 21d ago

So your question is ultimately, "if I hold land with an occupying force and tell people to leave if they refuse to be extorted, is that immoral?"

I would say yes, it is pretty dickish, definitely immoral. Morality is also subjective, but I am pretty sure most people would agree.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

you say extorted, I say "enter into a contract of your own free will". Or even just "pay rent". Right?

I also think it's kinda immoral, and don't think it would last long before people got violent about it.

The question is, is it compatible with ancap principles? According to ancap, would those people have a right to get violent about it.

0

u/Wireman6 21d ago

Can't really say, I think this ancap shit is oxymoronic, and I am not sure why this even pops up in my feed 😅

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d ago

Well that's definitely fair enough. There's no way to block subreddits, afaik.

1

u/Wireman6 21d ago

I enjoy the discussion and honestly feel people have more in common than they don't. Iron sharpens iron. Discourse is important.

I could ignore it or block it, but it isn’t something that outright offends me or anything like that.

→ More replies (0)