The Lockean synthesis

[Arkolon]

Welcome to the family, Ark.

Although, I wish that second number was a bit more negative.

Yeah, building off of this, why did you become a bit more authoritarian? You used to be around -7 or so, I believe. How did this influence your beliefs on one's personal and civil rights?

I clicked "Agree" to a death penalty question and a few other ones about society should be organised in such a way that everyone has commands to take and orders to make. I also didn't press on any of the "strongly" opinions on purpose. Consider me a -5 < x < -6.

[Arkolon]

Kelinfort, I thought you were a centre leftist, not a centre rightist? Or have your political beliefs shifted?

Centrist, though I was referring to the family of statists.

Hey, I've never stopped being a statist!

[Calimera II]

Your political compass changed considerably, I like your move to the centre-right. Personally, I don't agree with the extremes, because they tend to be narrow-minded But I think you explained that in your essay. Excellent post.

[Arkolon]

Your political compass changed considerably, I like your move to the centre-right. Personally, I don't agree with the extremes, because they tend to be narrow-minded But I think you explained that in your essay. Excellent post.

It'd been half a year since the last time I took that test, and then I only ever allowed myself to click on the "strongly" options. Now that I refrained from doing so, I appear so much more moderate. I hope the sudden change doesn't make me come off as a flip-flopper; most of my actual views on how the government should be organised and how it ought manage the political economy have not changed.

Despite this, thank you very much for the compliments. It means a lot.

[Calimera II]

Your political compass changed considerably, I like your move to the centre-right. Personally, I don't agree with the extremes, because they tend to be narrow-minded But I think you explained that in your essay. Excellent post.

It'd been half a year since the last time I took that test, and then I only ever allowed myself to click on the "strongly" options. Now that I refrained from doing so, I appear so much more moderate. I hope the sudden change doesn't make me come off as a flip-flopper; most of my actual views on how the government should be organised and how it ought manage the political economy have not changed.

Despite this, thank you very much for the compliments. It means a lot.

That is what I meant with people that are 'cling' to one idea: they tend to be narrow-minded. According to them everything can only be explained from their point of view. But you aren't narrow-minded, let that be clear. Moreover, you do not come off as a flip-flopper, at all. You are still a right winger, and you have made it more than clear why you have taken the decision not to be libertarian anymore.

Furthermore, all of your posts are so extremely well written. And that OP is maybe the best I have ever read on NS.

[MERIZoC]

It'd been half a year since the last time I took that test, and then I only ever allowed myself to click on the "strongly" options. Now that I refrained from doing so, I appear so much more moderate. I hope the sudden change doesn't make me come off as a flip-flopper; most of my actual views on how the government should be organised and how it ought manage the political economy have not changed.

Despite this, thank you very much for the compliments. It means a lot.

That is what I meant with people that are 'cling' to one idea: they tend to be narrow-minded. According to them everything can only be explained from their point of view. But you aren't narrow-minded, let that be clear. Moreover, you do not come off as a flip-flopper, at all. You are still a right winger, and you have made it more than clear why you have taken the decision not to be libertarian anymore.

Furthermore, all of your posts are so extremely well written. And that OP is maybe the best I have ever read on NS.

Agree 100%. Your explanation is both interesting and enlightening, and only goes to further show that you're one of the best posters on here.

[Arkolon]

@Calimera and Merizoc: That's really too nice of you guys. I feel so, so flattered. I don't know what else to say. Thank you very much!

[Skeckoa]

Wait... would this mean that people have to pay property taxes if they make a house on the moon? If so, to whom?

Not a deriding question, more a curiosity one.

[Arkolon]

Wait... would this mean that people have to pay property taxes if they make a house on the moon? If so, to whom?

Not a deriding question, more a curiosity one.

If you kill someone on the moon, which state punishes you?

The answers are identical.

[Skeckoa]

If you kill someone on the moon, which state punishes you? The answers are identical.

It would have to do with the country of the person whom you killed. If their family decides to use a private or a state institution to seek justice blah blah blah

So does everyone seek to get retribution from you when you look down on them from your moon house? (I can't read your mind dude, the answer to me is not that obvious)

[Kelinfort]

Centrist, though I was referring to the family of statists.

Hey, I've never stopped being a statist!

You were on the edge for a while

[Arkolon]

If you kill someone on the moon, which state punishes you? The answers are identical.

It would have to do with the country of the person whom you killed. If their family decides to use a private or a state institution to seek justice blah blah blah

So does everyone seek to get retribution from you when you look down on them from your moon house? (I can't read your mind dude, the answer to me is not that obvious)

In anarcho-capitalism, although force is condemned, there is no mechanism put into place to exercise legitimate use of force, ie justice. This means that you could kill someone, and no state would stop you (although the private courts might). Building a house on the moon, which has no state, nor private courts, it is a de facto anarchy. If you breached the NAP from all the way up there, while no one was next to you or killed or raped, there is no one to stop you.

In the very same way, when there is no state, as is the situation on the moon, you could build a house and call it private property. No one would stop you. But once a state arrives, and you are in still possession of that private property, the Lockean proviso and synthesis kick in, giving you no justifiable reason to avoid paying compensation for your continued use of the private property.

[Kelinfort]

I think I understand your idea now. Basically, you take the Lockean Proviso for land, and apply it to all property.

[Arkolon]

I think I understand your idea now. Basically, you take the Lockean Proviso for land, and apply it to all property forms of exchange.

Sort of.

There are three principles in the entitlement theory: the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings, in transfer of holdings, and in rectification of injustices. The first holds that you can mix your labour with unowned land, turning common property into private property. The last one holds that all injustices must be compensated for, plus deterrent. The construct that binds the principle of rectification of injustices with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings is the Lockean proviso: because self-ownership guarantees you the right to accumulate property, anyone else accumulating property is a diminishment of your rights, and thus must be compensated for. This is true even while you still own your private property. The construct that binds the principle of rectification of injustices with the principle of justice in transfer of holdings is the Lockean synthesis: because all mediums of exchange within the principle of justice in transfer of holdings are entitlements to private property, they hold equal value to the private property. As a result, the continued possession of moneys must also be compensated for, in the form of taxation.

I hope that clears things up. I could draw a diagram in paint.

[Arkolon]

I hope this pings you and appears in your egosearch.

Such a definition is poorly defined and would overlook all cases of anarchism, calling them statist societies because they have populations, territories, laws, etc. There is only ONE thing that makes the state a state. What is it, if not a Gewaltmonopol?

Is anarchism the lack of a state, or the lack of a government? One could easily have a governmentless state, but not a stateless government.

You can have stateless governments, but you can't have governmentless states. Anarchy is statelessness.

[Twilight Imperium]

I hope this pings you and appears in your egosearch.

Is anarchism the lack of a state, or the lack of a government? One could easily have a governmentless state, but not a stateless government.

You can have stateless governments, but you can't have governmentless states. Anarchy is statelessness.

I would have no issue referring to such a society as a state, provided it was autonomous, had a population, et cetera, et cetera. How (or if) they want to organize themselves would determine what type of state they have.

[Arkolon]

I hope this pings you and appears in your egosearch.


You can have stateless governments, but you can't have governmentless states. Anarchy is statelessness.

I would have no issue referring to such a society as a state, provided it was autonomous, had a population, et cetera, et cetera. How (or if) they want to organize themselves would determine what type of state they have.

So anarchy is impossible?

[Twilight Imperium]

I would have no issue referring to such a society as a state, provided it was autonomous, had a population, et cetera, et cetera. How (or if) they want to organize themselves would determine what type of state they have.

So anarchy is impossible?

I'd say that according to that definition, statelessness is impossible above the level of the individual.

[Arkolon]

So anarchy is impossible?

I'd say that according to that definition, statelessness is impossible above the level of the individual.

Then, considering a whole sphere of political philosophy has been completely omitted through your peculiar definition, it isn't a very good one, is it?

[Dumb Ideologies]

What we have here is a maximally convoluted manner of expressing the oft-cited rebuttal to libertarian sloganeering that has existed since time immemorial: namely that taxation is rent, not theft.

Sorry, Harry, but this ain't wizardry.

[Arkolon]

What we have here is a maximally convoluted manner of expressing the oft-cited rebuttal to libertarian sloganeering that has existed since time immemorial: namely that taxation is rent, not theft.

Sorry, Harry, but this ain't wizardry.

(Image)

Actually, the Lockean synthesis doesn't say that taxation is rent. I don't know where you got that idea from.

[MERIZoC]

What we have here is a maximally convoluted manner of expressing the oft-cited rebuttal to libertarian sloganeering that has existed since time immemorial: namely that taxation is rent, not theft.

Sorry, Harry, but this ain't wizardry.

(Image)

Actually, the Lockean synthesis doesn't say that taxation is rent. I don't know where you got that idea from.

If I understand correctly, it holds that taxation is compensation, correct?

[Arkolon]

Actually, the Lockean synthesis doesn't say that taxation is rent. I don't know where you got that idea from.

If I understand correctly, it holds that taxation is compensation, correct?

Precisely.

[Twilight Imperium]

I'd say that according to that definition, statelessness is impossible above the level of the individual.

Then, considering a whole sphere of political philosophy has been completely omitted through your peculiar definition, it isn't a very good one, is it?

Not really. Definitions are useful partially because of that which they omit, and an anarchistic society being a state under this definition doesn't preclude it being anarchistic. They can have borders, autonomy, population, territory, et cetera.They just need to lack a hierarchy, laws, and other governmental trappings.

Also, if taxation is compensation for the use of public resources and so forth, how does that differ from rent?

[Arkolon]

Then, considering a whole sphere of political philosophy has been completely omitted through your peculiar definition, it isn't a very good one, is it?

an anarchistic society being a state under this definition doesn't preclude it being anarchistic.

Yes, it does. Anarchism is definitively stateless. That's what makes it anarchistic.

Also, if taxation is compensation for the use of public resources and so forth, how does that differ from rent?

Rent conveys ownership by a landlord or by the state. The state doesn't "own" all of the land in the way individuals own private property, so how could a state "rent out" land it doesn't own in the first place? Compensation for the diminishment of rights of others is not "rent". It's a whole other, separate category.