America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

https://medium.com/the-radical-center/the-triumph-of-the-mid...

Plenty of info out there that wealth is getting distributed globally. The absolute poor are decreasing and the middle class globally is increasing - absolute numbers and by the %'ages.

> inevitably get accused

If you use the ideas and thoughts of it... then of course you're going to get accused of it.

And your "why you gotta call me a communist" doesn't answer the question... what other options are there?

Those who abide from it tacitly support the elected government, of which the people have delegated the powers of taxation to. And the constitution holds the ability to collect taxes, even prior to the 16th amendment.

> and I already conceded that public decency laws are analogous to taxation

And they are but the iceberg's tip of laws that are analogous to taxation.

> The nature of property rights is constituted by the human instinct for territory and assignation of the same innate moral value to all humans is the equilibrium result of repeated negotiations.

You can say the same about slavery.

> Real-world logical consistency creates circumstances for creatures with brains that comprehend logic to make productive inferences about the world.

And yet taxes are ubiquitous. So what does that say about the human ability to comprehend logic?

> If you feel that you have a claim on the basis of wealth inequality, then you’re free to tender that claim to whoever’s massive wealth is the cause of the alleged wrong against you.

Right, as in the case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.

> He can’t (is not per itted to) burn other people’s houses (against their wishes) period; even if the technique he uses to burn other people’s houses would be permitted otherwise.

Correct, and if it is shown that inequality caused by lack of taxation leads to the burning of other peoples' homes, then it would demonstrate that hoarding is functionally equivalent of burning your own home in a dense neighborhood.

> How? You’re already taking food off my plate, thats what taxation is.

That food on your plate was taken from someone else.

> You don’t get to bring in your own terrible system to replace another terrible system.

On what basis is that choice invalidated?

> If taxes required consent then they would be fine.

Taxes are consented, because unless one protests the tax overtly, evades the tax covertly, rejects one's citizenship, etc. then one is tacitly consenting to the state quo. That is as naturally, inevitably, and carelessly done as those who would reject property rights thoughtlessly and jealously guard the food on their own plates. To argue that society, which is a complex, interlocking, inelegant, flawed, ridiculous, teetering system is some sort of pure construct of logic where you can argue away one important component, while ignoring your own ineluctable benefiting from that component, is hypocrisy and folly.

Perhaps one can imagine a society where every single government service corresponds 1:1 to a tax. Maybe that is the society we should be working to build. Complete transparency and voluntarism. I see nothing wrong with that. But we don't live in that society yet. In the meantime, every time you are not getting your home invaded by a foreign power or by criminal gangs, every time your property is kept safe from fire, every time you type a letter over an information system created by public funding and powered by public utilities, you are consenting to your tax dollars guaranteeing your own life and livelihood. If you call taxes theft, then maybe you should complain about getting all of those public services you never consented to receiving in the first place.

If you do, then you have the right to exit. And so we come full circle.

> I oppose the state expropriating people by force. How does that imply that I should oppose property?

The state preserves property in the same nature that it expropriate taxes, through the monopoly of force. I think that's what Proudhon is getting at. The application of force through abstracted definitions of concepts of taxation or property are less offensive to me than say, government blatantly committing violence through war or covert action or police brutality, but it does seem that you and Proudhon share similar obsessions and thus methodologies of perceiving the world, and thus a compatible framework for discussion.

That would be nonsensical. We prohibit slavery on the exact same basis as we recognize the immorality of taxation.

> And yet taxes are ubiquitous. So what does that say about the human ability to comprehend logic?

We know that the arguments are not logical, which is why taxation is coercive.

> That food on your plate was taken from someone else.

I obtained it through voluntary exchange. If the title is encumbered then that’s a reason for someone to tender a claim. Regardless I’m not convinced, I don’t survive on the basis of taxation. So I diagree and assert that my food was not taken from some one else.

> On what basis is that choice invalidated?

The same basis we rejected the last system.

> Taxes are consented, because unless one protests the tax overtly, evades the tax covertly, rejects one's citizenship, etc. then one is tacitly consenting to the state quo.

Not at all. I’m subject to violence for those things. Taxation is coercive. Consent cannot be obtained through coercion.

> That is as naturally, inevitably, and carelessly done as those who would reject property rights thoughtlessly and jealously guard the food on their own plates. To argue that society, which is a complex, interlocking, inelegant, flawed, ridiculous, teetering system is some sort of pure construct of logic where you can argue away one important component, while ignoring your own ineluctable benefiting from that component, is hypocrisy and folly.

I never said that, I just observed the logical flaws in a particular concept of society.

> Perhaps one can imagine a society where every single government service corresponds 1:1 to a tax. Maybe that is the society we should be working to build. Complete transparency and voluntarism. I see nothing wrong with that. But we don't live in that society yet.

If you think its a worthy ideal, then you can choose to pursue it.

> In the meantime, every time you are not getting your home invaded by a foreign power or by criminal gangs, every time your property is kept safe from fire, every time you type a letter over an information system created by public funding and powered by public utilities, you are consenting to your tax dollars guaranteeing your own life and livelihood.

Thats nonsensical. One might as well call you a pickpocket if I were to steal a wallet and use to buy you ice cream.

> If you call taxes theft, then maybe you should complain about getting all of those public services you never consented to receiving in the first place.

We do. We would like the busibodies to stop doing things they want, that we do not want, and then telling us it is for our own good. We are tired of having to bid for services on a market where we must compete with bureaucrats who spend our own money to compete with us.

Much has been written about the crowding out effect of government spending in markets.

> If you do, then you have the right to exit. And so we come full circle.

The problem with exercising that right is that the people who coerce taxes do not recognize the right of exit, and so they use threats and violence to prevent it.

> The state preserves property in the same nature that it expropriate taxes, through the monopoly of force.

Property is antecedent to state protection. We’re find with waiving state protection if it means no longer having taxes expropriated from us.

> I think that's what Proudhon is getting at.

Proudhon is wrong. Property is a social arrangement that is sustained through mutual participation. Taxes are extorted unilaterally.

> The application of force through abstracted definitions of concepts of taxation or property are less offensive to me than say, government blatantly committing violence through war or covert action or police brutality,

It is less offensive, thats why its a more effective means of appropriating value from people who are vulnerable.

> it does seem that you and Proudhon share similar obsessions and thus methodologies of perceiving the world, and thus a compatible framework for discussion.

Proudhon is mistaken about the nature of property. It’s a social arrangement that exists between persons. The government claimed the power to ajudicate disputes, and since then greedy people abuse that power to violate property rights. This power that is abused is the same power thatis used to collect taxes and violate people’s rights. Property rights are logically antecedent to this.

The human instinct for territory leads to slavery.

> We know that the arguments are not logical

Who is we?

> The same basis we rejected the last system.

No one has rejected taxation as a concept other than yourself.

> Consent cannot be obtained through coercion.

By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain punitive measures. In fact, it can be extrapolated that all of society is coercive, as the societal contract is assumed pre-birth and never formally consented to, and is subject to violence at every level.

> I never said that, I just observed the logical flaws in a particular concept of society.

You did, because you are treating taxation as a critique of pure reason, rather than a concrete policy that exists outside of a vacuum.

> If you think its a worthy ideal, then you can choose to pursue it.

Who says I'm not?

> Thats nonsensical. One might as well call you a pickpocket if I were to steal a wallet and use to buy you ice cream.

It's as nonsensical as you demanding to receive national defense or the ability to drive on public roads while rejecting taxation.

> We are tired of having to bid for services on a market where we must compete with bureaucrats who spend our own money to compete with us.

And you can do all of that without holding the uselessly extremist position of all taxation is theft!

> Much has been written about the crowding out effect of government spending in markets.

Without having to resort to rejecting taxation as a concept from first principles.

> the people who coerce taxes do not recognize the right of exit

No, the problem with the right of exit is that every single society on earth recognizes the necessity of sustaining through taxation. Perhaps you can try exiting to terra nullis or seasteading in international waters. But any society you build will inevitably require taxation at a certain scale. At the very least then you will have accomplished a political experiment to validate your beliefs on the non-necessity of taxes.

> Property is antecedent to state protection.

Property is still dependent upon state protection, as again the institutions of national defense and public courts demonstrate.

> Property is a social arrangement that is sustained through mutual participation. Taxes are extorted unilaterally.

Taxation is likewise sustained through mutual participation. Contrariwise, property can also be extorted unilaterally, as in the case of rents.

> thats why its a more effective means of appropriating value from people who are vulnerable

Tell it to the vulnerable who are dependent upon social services funded by taxation.

> The government claimed the power to ajudicate disputes

That power was freely given by individuals to the government, as there is a need for a neutral third party and a higher authority to appeal to. Without an adjudicative force, the only resort is might makes right.

> Property rights are logically antecedent to this.

Property must originate from somewhere, which would be nature or the public commons. To acquire and then retain property thus requires the use of force. At least according to Proudhon's definition. If you are to accuse all sorts of common concepts of originating in force and violence, then you are living in Proudhon's world. You only have a different bugbear from him.

Negative. Territory is things, not people.

> By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain punitive measures.

This is not true. You’ve neglected to consider laws that prohibit without specifying consequences for violation. You’re also neglecting to consider laws against coercion.

> In fact, it can be extrapolated that all of society is coercive, as the societal contract is assumed pre-birth and never formally consented to, and is subject to violence at every level.

Now you’re understanding why a “social contract” can’t be used to justify violating someone’s rights.

> Who says I'm not?

You’re arguing against it with me right here.

> It's as nonsensical as you demanding to receive national defense or the ability to drive on public roads while rejecting taxation

I haven’t demanded national defense, and roads predate the government that expropriated them from the commons. I shouldn’t need permission from bureaucrats to use the roads.

> And you can do all of that without holding the uselessly extremist position of all taxation is theft!

You’re losing the plot. Bureaucrats taxing and spending necessarily means that I’m competing, with bureaucrats, for goods, while the bureaucrats are using my own money to compete with me.

> No, the problem with the right of exit is that every single society on earth recognizes the necessity of sustaining through taxation.

So you agree that I do not have the right of exit.

> But any society you build will inevitably require taxation at a certain scale.

[citation needed]

> Property is still dependent upon state protection

No, it is not.

> Taxation is likewise sustained through mutual participation.

No, taxation is sustained through asymmetric threat of violence.

> Contrariwise, property can also be extorted unilaterally, as in the case of rents.

Rent is not a unilateral transaction, neither is it extortion.

> Tell it to the vulnerable who are dependent upon social services funded by taxation.

Those people well know that they are dependent on the scraps that the oligarchs throw once said oligarchs have ate their fill from the working class.

> That power was freely given by individuals to the government

How can some individuals give power over the rest of us to the government?

> Without an adjudicative force, the only resort is might makes right.

You think the government is an alternative to might makes right? Interesting.

> Property must originate from somewhere, which would be nature or the public commons.

Unowned property becomes owned through homesteading, owned property changes hands through voluntary transfer.

> To acquire and then retain property thus requires the use of force.

This does not follow from anything you have said, and indeed force is not required to acquire or retain property in all circumstances. Force is a primary means of retaining property when someone attempts to take it from the owner.

> At least according to Proudhon's definition. If you are to accuse all sorts of common concepts of originating in force and violence, then you are living in Proudhon's world. You only have a different bugbear from him.

I’ve made a solid case that does not rely on Proudhon (whatever his merits).