Masebrock (July 11, 2009 at 5:35 am)

You say it is justified because I can flee the country? A valid non-coercive contract would read Option 1: You pay taxes and receive services. Option 2: You don't pay taxes and you don't receive service. The coercive "contract" of the property tax says: Option 1: You pay taxes and receive services Option 2: You give us your land. By leaving no option for someone to choose to not surrender property, the state becomes a thief.

Masebrock (July 11, 2009 at 5:29 am)

I'm afraid I don't follow the apple example. If I eat the apple, then I owe a debt equal to how much the apple costs. How can you say "You'd have no right to pay ONLY the debt. "? What else do I owe?By truly following the Lockean theory of property, land that falls into disuse or abandonment would then become unowned. But I'll follow your argument, you say that if I surrender my property to the state they will quit taxing me. Well duh! How is that anything but theft as well?

ImScoobyDew (July 11, 2009 at 5:24 am)

I honestly doubt you're able to purchase property without any help from the services or tools given to you by the state. If you did, the state would have no business talking to you just as they have no business talking to me. If you did use their services though, it doesn't mean they own your property it just means you've agreed to pay them as is dictated in the contract that agreed on because of initial consumption.

Masebrock (July 11, 2009 at 5:24 am)

If the social contract is implicit, then what are the terms and when did I agree to it? The restaurant example is not an example of a contract, but a debt. Consumption of good or services, which then incurs debt, does not justify a contract. The only thing you owe the restaurant is the price of what you consumed, nothing more. If the restaurant said that by eating the food you implicitly agreed to give 25% of all future wages you might earn, they would be crazy and completely out of line.

ImScoobyDew (July 11, 2009 at 5:13 am)

My point in a nutshell is this. If you consume any services or goods, from any organization, you forfeit the right to negotiate the contract because your initial consumption is the agreement of the terms of the contract. Otherwise it would be stealing. Now, you ARE allowed to negotiate the terms but it must be BEFORE any consumption has taken place.

ImScoobyDew (July 11, 2009 at 5:10 am)

If you truly believed in your theory of property, eventually all property would one day be owned&must then be trade right? Well guess what? That's the case in the US, all land is already owned. That's all I was trying to say in that argument, seriously. And stop using the argument that the state will confiscate property regardless of debt owed or contract signed. I am objective proof that they won't do or say anything to you if you do not use their services or under their contract.

ImScoobyDew (July 11, 2009 at 5:07 am)

Your right to say debt does not equal a contract. Consumption of goods&services does though, otherwise it's theft. If you're in a grocery store&you eat 1 apple you forfeit your right to negotiate the terms of the contract that was made. If it costed them 1$ to put that apple out there the debt for that apple is 1$. If they charge every one 2$ for every apple you'd have to pay 2$, which means abiding by the full contract, or be charged with theft. You'd have no right to pay ONLY the debt.

ImScoobyDew (July 11, 2009 at 5:02 am)

And you're absolutely right your property is under no contract, you are. You admitted to using their services therefor you must abide the full social contract which allows property tax. I understand what you're trying to argue but unless you can obtain a property in the US without using one single government service,&are therefor not under the social contract&not obligated to pay property tax, your argument doesn't matter.

ImScoobyDew (July 11, 2009 at 4:59 am)

The social contract is most indeed implicit. If I'm at a restaurant&I eat a portion of an appetizer presented I still have to abide the full contract&pay full price or I'll be charged with theft. Wether I knew the details of the pricing, or if it was priced at all, is irrelevant the full contract must still be held. So if you use a government service 1st, you forfeit the right to negotiate the terms of the contract like me at the shop, I have to pay full price even if it was overcharged.

Masebrock (July 11, 2009 at 12:11 am)

I'm "going in circles" because if you don't understand how property is legitimately and rightfully claimed, then you are going to assume that control=ownership. The state may control my property, but they do not own it because my property was purchased with the product of MY labor, not the labor of the state.

Masebrock (July 11, 2009 at 12:03 am)

I don't want to pay for services, but I must under the threat of the law. If a man has stated that he WILL take your wallet unless you give him your car, are you legitimizing the transaction by asking for your drivers license back afterwords? I don't think so.Re shovel: If the contract stated that if you decided not to buy the shovel you would have your house taken from you, then the contract would not be enforceable because it was signed through coercion.

Masebrock (July 10, 2009 at 11:58 pm)

The state has put little to no labor into my land, or into the acquisition of it. You assume so much. If I owe a debt to the state, then I will pay off that debt. Debt does not equal contract.I will gladly use the state services and pay for what I have used, but that does not equal a contract with the state.The state is a thief because they have explicitly stated that they will confiscate property regardless of debt owed or contract signed.