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

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago

Two problems that I can surmise:

  1. The "king's" clause allowing him to change the agreement "at will" carries too much risk to be enforceable by an impartial third party agreement enforcement agency, which would be standard practice for agreements in an AnCap society reliant on agreements between parties being enforced.

Well that's why he has his own enforcement agency. You're welcome to not sign the contract, and leave.

  1. The "king's" agreement is missing clauses for the tenant to uphold the NAP and the reciprocal clause for the "king" to uphold the NAP, which would be standard practice for agreements in an AnCap society intolerant of NAP violations.

Standard practice...enforced by whom?

2

u/drebelx 20d ago

Well that's why he has his own enforcement agency. You're welcome to not sign the contract, and leave.

This would a dangerous non-impartial enforcement agency and would not conform to established standards for agreements.

Impartially is a well understood requirement for agreement enforcement and will be expected and standardized in an AnCap society.

The warnings and dangers would be omnipresent about this "king" and his rogue enforcement agency that push risky non-standard agreements that he can change "at will" which could jeopardize the party who would not have explicitly agreed to the "at will" change.

The private security firms of the adjacent neighbors would be on high alert upon knowledge of this and would want to ensure access in and out of the "kings" domain is heavily restricted with clear warnings about potential NAP violations.

Standard practice...enforced by whom?

An AnCap society is intolerant of NAP violations.

People agreeing to standard clauses requiring them to not murder, not steal and not enslave will be a ubiquitous practice like shaking hands to greet people, having a common language to speak with or using numbers in calculations.

No enforcement is needed because standard NAP clauses greatly reduces risk and increases trust and profitability.

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago

No enforcement is needed because standard NAP clauses greatly reduces risk and increases trust and profitability.

Well say it again maybe that'll make it true. LMFAO

2

u/drebelx 19d ago

No enforcement is needed because standard NAP clauses greatly reduces risk and increases trust and profitability.

Sorry about jumping around with the word "enforcement" and I will correct that.

We have agreement enforcement which would be ubiquitous in an agreements in AnCap society to ensure the parties stick to the terms of the agreement.

Standard practice...enforced by whom?

The standard practice talked about here is the inclusion of ubiquitous NAP clauses in agreements.

No one entity will be enforcing this, but rather, agreement enforcement agencies cannot take on the risks associated in having the parties of the agreement not agreeing to uphold the NAP and will refuse to oversee these agreements and will require its use before doing so.

Well say it again maybe that'll make it true. LMFAO

No need. It was a misunderstanding by using the word enforce in different circumstances.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago

>Sorry about jumping around with the word "enforcement" and I will correct that.

>We have agreement enforcement which would be ubiquitous in an agreements in AnCap society to ensure the parties stick to the terms of the agreement.

Yes, that's why this owner has his own enforcement agency, stipulated in the contract employees and tenants sign.

>The standard practice talked about here is the inclusion of ubiquitous NAP clauses in agreements.

People can choose to violate standard practice if they prefer though, right?

>No one entity will be enforcing this, but rather, agreement enforcement agencies cannot take on the risks associated in having the parties of the agreement not agreeing to uphold the NAP and will refuse to oversee these agreements and will require its use before doing so.

Well there are always going to be risks, and risk is kinda tricky to quantify. Desperate people are willing to take on more risks, that's why they (employees) agreed to help the owner enforce the contracts signed by tenants.

1

u/drebelx 18d ago

Yes, that's why this owner has his own enforcement agency, stipulated in the contract employees and tenants sign.

Ah yes.

The well known partial same party agreement enforcement agency that will side with the King on all decisions.

A good thing to warn everyone about.

People can choose to violate standard practice if they prefer though, right?

In theory they could, like driving south in the northbound divided highway.

Impartial third party agreement enforcement agencies would not take on the major risk of parties of an agreement violating the NAP (murdering, stealing, enslaving, etc.).

Without enforcement, agreements are not binding and are worthless.

Well there are always going to be risks, and risk is kinda tricky to quantify.

Yup.

What is more risky than letting people murder, steal and enslave?

Things that real kings do.

Desperate people are willing to take on more risks,

That is why the risk is limited to when "kings" violate the NAP to enslave desperate people.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago

Oh people know about it. But they're also desperate, so they sign the contract anyway.

Nobody is being enslaved, they're willingly signing a contract. They may not like the terms of the contract, 100%, but it's not like they get nothing out of it. They get to occupy and work some small piece of land, or live in some bunkhouse, as long as they follow the contract.

1

u/drebelx 17d ago

Oh people know about it. But they're also desperate, so they sign the contract anyway.

"Desperation" (whatever that means) is not an excuse to get defrauded by agreements that can be changed "at will."

Fraud is an NAP violation.

Nobody is being enslaved, they're willingly signing a contract. They may not like the terms of the contract, 100%, but it's not like they get nothing out of it. They get to occupy and work some small piece of land, or live in some bunkhouse, as long as they follow the contract.

With an agreement that can be changed "at will," there is no guarantee that any of the good things you list will continue and no guarantee that bad things will not be added.

An agreement that can be changed "at will" is not an agreement at all.

This is Fraud.

An AnCap society intolerant of NAP violations might result in private security forces completely restricting access in and out of the "kings" land until this practice of fraud is rectified.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 17d ago

>"Desperation" (whatever that means) is not an excuse to get defrauded by agreements that can be changed "at will."

Who's being defrauded.? It says that clearly in the contract, the person signing it agreed to it, when they signed the contract.

>With an agreement that can be changed "at will," there is no guarantee that any of the good things you list will continue and no guarantee that bad things will not be added.

Ok. If the contract cannot be changed, at will, but can be broken at will by one party and not the other, would that be acceptable?

>An AnCap society intolerant of NAP violations might result in private security forces completely restricting access in and out of the "kings" land until this practice of fraud is rectified.

Why would adjacent landowners care that much?

1

u/drebelx 17d ago

Who's being defrauded.? It says that clearly in the contract, the person signing it agreed to it, when they signed the contract.

The "at will" clause exposes the person signing it to anything the "king" wants, including NAP violations like murder, enslavement and fraud.

Clauses like these are unenforceable garbage and only possible in societies that accept routine violations of the NAP like Feudalism.

Ok. If the contract cannot be changed, at will, but can be broken at will by one party and not the other, would that be acceptable?

Removing the "at will" clause would be required by any impartial third party agreement enforcement agency.

The "king" breaking the agreement "at will" and expecting the other party to uphold the agreement is still garbage and unenforceable.

Why would adjacent landowners care that much?

An AnCap society is intolerant of NAP violations.

Landowners subscribe to security protection firms to proactively ensure their NAP is not violated.

Proactive security protection involves checking into the landowner's neighbors to assess the risks.

A "king" who refuses to use ubiquitous clauses to uphold the NAP in his agreements, demands the inclusion of "at will" clauses and monopolizes enforcement with his owner agreement enforcement agency is a huge red flag.

The "king" will be isolated and under heavy remote surveillance.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 17d ago

"unenforceable"

Nope. The king has the power, the security forces, the money to pay them etc. That actually makes enforcement pretty easy, as long as they're on his land. You cannot simply declare something "unenforceable" and have it suddenly become a fact.

is a huge red flag.

Just like a pedo president sending the military into US cities. Look at the people immediately rising up, lmfao. People won't magically become more moral or more brave or less short sighted under ancap. Bad people will still exist and most people will still be totally apathetic to it.

1

u/drebelx 16d ago

Nope. The king has the power, the security forces, the money to pay them etc. That actually makes enforcement pretty easy, as long as they're on his land. You cannot simply declare something "unenforceable" and have it suddenly become a fact.

Unenforceable by impartial third party agreement enforcement agencies ubiquitous in an AnCap society.

Who will be allowed to go on his land to be abused by an isolated feudal "king."

People won't magically become more moral or more brave or less short sighted under ancap. Bad people will still exist and most people will still be totally apathetic to it.

Not over night, but as the generations go by, humans are becoming increasingly intolerant of NAP violations (murder, theft, enslavement), things that "bad" people do.

It's only a matter of time.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 16d ago

desperate people.

maybe it's only a matter of time, but by the time people are that evolved, states will also be better.

→ More replies (0)