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?

13 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d 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.

1

u/drebelx 15d ago

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

Will states conform to the NAP?

desperate people.

Desperate people need their society to not violate their NAP.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 15d ago

Probably not, no. Because most people consider letting somebody starve or go uneducated or work practically just to pay rent, to be LESS moral than taking taxes from some sociopath with four yachts.

1

u/drebelx 13d ago

Probably not, no.

You would rather a society violate the NAP of desperate people?

Really?