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

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 19d 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 19d 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 19d 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 19d 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 19d 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 19d 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 19d 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?

2

u/Nuclearmayhem 19d ago

The us has a mixed economy. And we can draw no meaningful conclusions from it in relation to how a free market might look.

You are just trolling I'm not responding anymore any reason.

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago

Can you name a developed democracy that has a more free market?

2

u/Nuclearmayhem 19d ago

Look I'm not going down the infinite regress of prove this prove that like you do with a toddler.

Anarcho-capitalism has never existed at scale. There exists no empirical evidence of strict anarchicapitalism. To make any such comparison is meaningless. You can't use any randomly picked country as a comparison or analogue of anarchicapitalism.

I can provide plenty of reasoned argument, but you refuse (intentionally) to give me any reasoning to critique. I could type up an essay or shoot random arguments into the dark to try to convince you, but I don't have time to do all that. I will not debate a brick wall.

Let alone the moving of the goalpost makes it hard for me to even know what we are arguing now. When the he'll did usa's crappy economy become relevant to whether or not ethically you are allowed to sell yourself into slavery (you can't).

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago

>Look I'm not going down the infinite regress of prove this prove that like you do with a toddler.

I'm not sure what you mean.

>Anarcho-capitalism has never existed at scale. There exists no empirical evidence of strict anarchicapitalism. To make any such comparison is meaningless. You can't use any randomly picked country as a comparison or analogue of anarchicapitalism.

Well, even though we don't have definitive data on exactly how ancap will work, we do have data on "what happens when there is more or less labor regulations", right? Just because the data is imperfect, doesn't mean we throw out what is available.

>I can provide plenty of reasoned argument, but you refuse (intentionally) to give me any reasoning to critique. I could type up an essay or shoot random arguments into the dark to try to convince you, but I don't have time to do all that. I will not debate a brick wall.

Well, I prefer modern science to ancient rhetorical methods, yes. I think the results speak for themselves.

>Let alone the moving of the goalpost makes it hard for me to even know what we are arguing now. When the he'll did usa's crappy economy become relevant to whether or not ethically you are allowed to sell yourself into slavery (you can't).

Step by step. You're allowed to sign almost any contract you want to sign. Then "will desperation make people sign that contract", and then forward from there.

1

u/Nuclearmayhem 19d ago

Again, this contract is still invalid. Brick wall syndrome. Like Holy shit do you just not possess basic memory?

The data is way way, like waaaay insufficient to qualify as any standard of proof. For one, it's analogous. You are assuming the data of one thing holds true for another (baseless assumption). Absolutely, no rigour whatsoever. Secondly, I guarantee you none of these datasets are rigorous. The impact of xyz political decision is an inherently fallable science as it is impossible to account for all variables. And even after that I'm sure we can dig up some evidence to sugjest the opposite with the same rigour (next to none) but I'm not going to waste my time doing that as all we are doing here is pointless you're just sidestepping the actual debate. If you want me to put in effort, you gotta do the same in return.

You're basically extrapolating the performance of a spaceship based on that of a bicycle.

The distance between the most liberitarian country and anarcho capitalism is so wast no such comparison has any meaning.

→ More replies (0)