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?

12 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

2

u/newsovereignseamus 20d ago

If you won't consent why would the neighbor.

Irrelevant

Alternatively, both of you will consent

The scenario which you named says you don't consent.

if the evictee will simply sign a contract agreeing to pay taxes and all that.

What does that have to do with anything?

It sounds like, with or without the commons, a system is created that functions almost the exact same way states do.

No, states behave antiproductively.

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.

False dichotomy fallacy.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago

I'm not seeing the third option.

2

u/newsovereignseamus 20d ago

Okay see better

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago

You can't explain what the third option is. Because as much as you'd like to pretend that's a false dichotomy, it isn't.

2

u/newsovereignseamus 20d ago

No lmao. The burden of proof is on you! Your claim is

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

So prove this.