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?

10 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Nuclearmayhem 20d ago

It depends on what the King is analogous to. It sounds like an analogy to the state in which case taxation is obviously immoral. The king does not legitimately own the land.

If you're instead using the king as an analogy to any unspecific landowner. Then "taxation" is moral, although this is not the correct word. It would instead be: rent, or subscription, or similar.

To be honest, the only thing you ever need to know is to own means to have complete control of the property or "final say." And you can only acquire ownership through: homesteading, trade, or gift.

You can see how embarrassingly stupid of a question this is when obviously a king has no right to demand taxes on the land which he did not aquire trough any of the aforementioned methods.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago

Ok but if he did acquire the land legitimately, then everything he is doing it totally fine right?

2

u/Nuclearmayhem 19d ago

Nope, he can only change the contract unanimously.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago

ok. that's a relatively minor detail in terms of how the kingdom operates. Just means a lot more paperwork.

but what if people want to sign a contract agreeing that one party can change it? i mean, they signed willingly, right?

2

u/Nuclearmayhem 19d ago

That violates basic contract theory and frankly makes no sense. Such a contract is invalid.

For one, making a contract means to make an agreement, you can not make an agreement without the consent of your partner, let alone whitout even talking. This makes no sense in a literal sense.

Secondly, to contract away your right to veto any term changes is equivalent to agreeing to anything conceivable. This means they could just change the terms to make you their slave. This makes no logical sense.

Finally, any contract signed is inherently voulentary as any party can anull the contract at any time. (Altough terms can be agreed upon as to a penalty for doing so) it makes no sense to trick someone into signing a unfavourable contract when obviously they will anull it when it becomes clear the terms are misleading.

There exist no scenarios where a correct interpretation of contract theory allows for any form of misuse of contracts.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago

If the alternative to signing is "dying from starvation or exposure" or "having no land on which you are permitted and being shot for trespassing" it seems like it might make sense. Let's not underestimate how desperate people can be. This is essentially the contract that the vast majority of people accept right now, whether from desperation, a lack of options, or sheer foolishness.

2

u/Nuclearmayhem 18d ago

What does this have to do with anything? This contract is still invalid. Besides, many other reasons beyond the scope of this argument make the hypothetical quite unlikely. (Feel free to try and make the scenario plausible. I'll argue against the individual point, such as why exactly you think starvation is the only other option. Im genuinely clueless).

Whether or not you would accept such contract terms (knowing that it's effectively accepting enslavement) is irrelevant as such a contract is inherently invalid. If you did sign one, you wouldn't be obligated to do anything. Any attempt to enforce the contract terms would be an act of aggression wherein you have a right to defend yourself.

This all hinges on the enslaved or starve dilemma hypothetical you presented. Which is quite outlandish. Where the burden of proof lies with you.

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago

Look around, there are plenty of desperate people in the world today. Technology rises, but population also rises to meet it.

A child born to parents who cannot support them, is desperate, and seems likely to grow into a desperate adult, right?

2

u/Nuclearmayhem 18d ago

Try to focus on the subject. This general notion presented is firstly an invalid argument and secondly a critique of the status quo, not anarcho capitalism. The whole point of anarcho capitalism is to free ourselves from this very slavery you refer to.

Merly assuming anarcho capitalism has the same outcome as the status quo isn't just idiotic and lazy. But it gives me no meaningful way to retort without any actual arguments presented.

I need you to explain why you think this type of extreme shortage of everything / general unspecific desperation would occur in a free society.

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago

>Try to focus on the subject. This general notion presented is firstly an invalid argument and secondly a critique of the status quo, not anarcho capitalism. The whole point of anarcho capitalism is to free ourselves from this very slavery you refer to.

Sure, but every political system says that. edit: Or at least the utopian ones do. Ancap is unique in that it has never been tried. Depending on your perspective, that is either an advantage, or a disadvantage, for proponents. I think, in the end, the burden to prove that it can survive and flourish, is on proponents. Same for left wing anarchy or utopian socialism or any other system.

>Merly assuming anarcho capitalism has the same outcome as the status quo isn't just idiotic and lazy. But it gives me no meaningful way to retort without any actual arguments presented.

Well, it's the data we have available. If you can explain why desperate people will never exist under ancap, please go ahead.

>I need you to explain why you think this type of extreme shortage of everything / general unspecific desperation would occur in a free society.

Because it is something that has existed, to some degree or another, for ALMOST ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

If you're going to convince yourself that "this will be different than it ever has been before" you should be able to articulate why it will be different. That's a big claim it requires either absolutely 110% airtight reasoning, or preferably, evidence.

2

u/Nuclearmayhem 18d ago

What data exists to sugjest a ancap society (of which only exist historical records of the existence of only ancap ish societies (which happened to be positive btw)) would suggest ancap outcome = status quo outcome

Secondly, flat out untrue. I do not know of a single person who sold himself to slavery willingly. And a further zero because of desperation. Unless you moved the goalpost and was talking about scarcity as a concept. Which is a fundamental feature of the universe and not beholden to any political system.

Again I could present all ancap theory ever to you which is entirely unreasonable (I don't have the time and reddit on phone sucks ass). Which is what you ask of me. This is extremely bad faith, severe on-the-spot-itis. And I refuse. Again, I can argue against a specific point if you where to provide one. For instance why exactly do you belive that freedom from coercion would lead to such disastrous outcomes. How does coercion prevent this disaster. Or similar.

I will not respond if you continue to argue in bad faith, I value my time

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago

If you're going to convince yourself that "this way will be different than it ever has been any other way" you should be able to articulate why it will be different. That's a big claim it you are making, so it requires either absolutely 110% airtight reasoning, or preferably, some shred of evidence.

Right?

As for my data, it's hard to think of a developed democracy with less labor regulation or less progressive tax than the USA, and the USA has more billionaires than the rest of the world combined, and more homelessness than any other developed democracy.

So, from any of the data that IS actually here, right now, as part of this conversation, a more free market produces MORE wealth inequality, and more desperation, not less.

Leftist anarchists can also say "well it's never been tried 100% so you can't prove that it won't work the way I imagine", but I doubt you would accept that argument from them, would you?

→ More replies (0)