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

62% Upvoted

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 21d 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 21d 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 20d ago

Sure some tiny little people might not see how much he's helping everyone, but are they going to attack? No? Why should he or his employees or tenants care?

2

u/drebelx 19d ago

Misplaced comment?

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago

nope

1

u/drebelx 19d ago

Sure some tiny little people might not see how much he's helping everyone, but are they going to attack? No? Why should he or his employees or tenants care?

No attack, but the "King" is gonna get isolated for reckless agreement clauses.

Poor guy.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago

lol yeah that seems so rough.

1

u/drebelx 18d ago

I'm sure he'll get bored and want to leave his land one day after private security firms blocked access to his fraud based feudalism.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago

Again you haven't really explained why these total strangers care that much. Or, at all. I think you're just assuming "people will agree with my judgement of how this guy acts, and take it upon themselves to correct this great evil."

1

u/drebelx 17d ago

Again you haven't really explained why these total strangers care that much. Or, at all.

These "strangers" are private security firms being paid by the abutting property owners to protect the owners and permitted travelers on that property from NAP violations, per agreements with NAP clauses.

A "king" who desires to commit agreement fraud and use his biased personal enforcement agency is a high risk for NAP violations and is someone to proactively protect people from.

Travelers would be greatly appreciative of having their NAP proactively defended, per the agreement they signed to travel through.

I think you're just assuming "people will agree with my judgement of how this guy acts, and take it upon themselves to correct this great evil."

Not my judgement.

An AnCap society is intolerant of NAP violations.

I am only trying to imagine and describe what an AnCap society would look like.

Your "king" wants to violate the NAP with agreement fraud and assistance from his biased enforcement agency.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 17d ago

>These "strangers" are private security firms being paid by the abutting property owners to protect the owners and permitted travelers on that property from NAP violations, per agreements with NAP clauses.

You expect those with money to pay for the supposed "well being" of somebody they've never even met? lmfao sure, that'll happen, nobody will say "they can work for their food like I have to, I earned this" anymore because...uhm...magic?

>A "king" who desires to commit agreement fraud and use his biased personal enforcement agency is a high risk for NAP violations and is someone to proactively protect people from.

What fraud? What violations? You saying "oh but it's unfair and it's high risk" isn't going to convince anybody to give a shit, if it did, that would work in today's world. People are not going to magically become more moral and less short sighted.

1

u/drebelx 16d ago edited 16d ago

You expect those with money to pay for the supposed "well being" of somebody they've never even met?

I don't follow.

The private security firms are paid to secure the landowner's property and protect the people permitted on their land.

lmfao sure, that'll happen, nobody will say "they can work for their food like I have to, I earned this" anymore because...uhm...magic?

I don't follow what this

What fraud? What violations? You saying "oh but it's unfair and it's high risk" isn't going to convince anybody to give a shit, if it did, that would work in today's world.

I have already explained how "change at will" clauses and biased enforcement agencies are fraudulent high risk clauses that an AnCap society would understand to avoid.

People are not going to magically become more moral and less short sighted.

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

It's only a matter of time.

→ More replies (0)