Taxes are a form of Theft

[Infected Mushroom]

You entered into a contract with the bank to create this account, this contract's purpose is to make the child the owner of the account. Since the child is too young, it probably makes you (explicitly or implicitly) a trustee (someone who holds legal title but has fiduciary obligations towards the child) until the child comes of age. At this point you've made a Gift to the child (the account); the account becomes a form of property. The child isn't a party, but he HAS benefited in that he has received a gift.

This intangible property created (the account) has a conditional attached to it, that something is to happen when the child turns 18. What you've really got here is a trustee-beneficiary relationship. You are the trustee, to hold the account for the child's benefit until he turns 18 (although in FORM, it might say the child already has the account).

The contract really only governs the CREATION of the account and an unspecified period of time after the account's creation. The rest is likely covered by a financial regulation statute which draws more on aspects of property law than contracts law. Essentially, it makes more sense to see an investment account as a property than as an on-going contract. If the bank does something wrong, it likely has breached this statute or that statute but I think if you argued it in terms of contact law, it would really primarily cover the creation phase. By the time the child has turned 18, the account has become a property (albeit a property governed by certain statutes) and to which the bank has certain obligations. But its not really a contract between the now adult and the bank; its just subsumed in the essential characteristic of the property itself (as dictated by a combination of what the statutes say and the specifics of how YOU created it). Essentially this is dealing with an intangible property.

It would be in the same category as an intellectual property right. An account is a piece of property (the law would assume that what is created is what was created under the original contract but it itself is not an ongoing contract) and like anything such as a car or a christmas tree... it can be transferred, gifted, held in trust, or sold etc subject to statutory constraints

So the contract provisions governing suing and arbitration and so forth are instantly nonbinding once the child turns 18? You sure about that?

if the now-adult went to court, it would be for a property law violation (the bank's fiduciary duty towards him as the account holder)... essentially misconduct on the part of the bank with respect to the account would be treated like if someone damaged your car while you kept it in their garage, the compensation would flow from the damage done to the account (ex the bank may have to pay the now adult for money he took out of the account)

this right flows from the fact that you issued a conditional gift to the child so that he becomes account holder at age 18; it is now his property and if damage is done to the property he has a right to claim

but the issue would be odd if you framed it in terms of contract; the contract law portion generally only covers the part where you are creating the bank account in the first place (ex did the bank actually create the intangible the agreement setting out to create or did they actually create something else?) But from that point on its much more fitting to seek remedies under property

essentially, the account by that point has become a piece of property (that can be sold, transferred, gifted etc subject to statutory limitations) and the bank operates more as a guardian; there really aren't any more parties beyond the original act of creation; by the time you are 18 the account has a life of its own as a property with legally recognised characteristics

the fact that it becomes the childs when he turns 18 is a result of the conditional characteristic of the account... not because the child now 18 has suddenly subsumed any role in a previous contract (that contract has become irrelevant except in so far as establishing what that intangible asset IS)

[Galloism]

So the contract provisions governing suing and arbitration and so forth are instantly nonbinding once the child turns 18? You sure about that?

if the now-adult went to court, it would be for a property law violation (the bank's fiduciary duty towards him as the account holder)... essentially misconduct on the part of the bank with respect to the account would be treated like if someone damaged your car while you kept it in their garage, the compensation would flow from the damage done to the account (ex the bank may have to pay the now adult for money he took out of the account)

this right flows from the fact that you issued a conditional gift to the child so that he becomes account holder at age 18; it is now his property and if damage is done to the property he has a right to claim

but the issue would be odd if you framed it in terms of contract; the contract law portion generally only covers the part where you are creating the bank account in the first place (ex did the bank actually create the intangible the agreement setting out to create or did they actually create something else?) But from that point on its much more fitting to seek remedies under property

There's also the contract with the investment advisor. You typically pay him or her a monthly or annual fee to professionally handle such investment accounts. This is a long-term contract engaged in by the custodian of the account on behalf of the actual owner. The amount is paid out of the child's funds. If the amount is not paid (typically it's paid straight out of the account, but it doesn't have to be), the advisor can pursue the child's assets for nonpayment of the amount specified in the contract, because the custodian signed that contract on behalf of the child, and so the child's assets can be pursued.

If the child doesn't actively cancel that contract once he turns 18, that continues, the investment advisor continues to be paid the advisory fees.

According to you, this should not be allowable, yet it's standard practice.

[Ifreann]

According to you, this should not be allowable, yet it's standard practice.

Basically sums up the whole thread.

[BK117B2]

Wrong, as I unambiguously stated. Do try to follow along

Stop taking up mutually contradictory positions and I'll stop pointing out your mutually contradictory positions.

The issue is that you created contradictory straw men and falsely claimed they were my ideas.

My position does not contradict itself.

[Galloism]

Stop taking up mutually contradictory positions and I'll stop pointing out your mutually contradictory positions.

The issue is that you created contradictory straw men and falsely claimed they were my ideas.

My position does not contradict itself.

Well, when it really boils down to "governments don't have a right to sovreignty", it's true that's not contradictory, except if you try to compare it with reality.

[Infected Mushroom]

if the now-adult went to court, it would be for a property law violation (the bank's fiduciary duty towards him as the account holder)... essentially misconduct on the part of the bank with respect to the account would be treated like if someone damaged your car while you kept it in their garage, the compensation would flow from the damage done to the account (ex the bank may have to pay the now adult for money he took out of the account)

this right flows from the fact that you issued a conditional gift to the child so that he becomes account holder at age 18; it is now his property and if damage is done to the property he has a right to claim

but the issue would be odd if you framed it in terms of contract; the contract law portion generally only covers the part where you are creating the bank account in the first place (ex did the bank actually create the intangible the agreement setting out to create or did they actually create something else?) But from that point on its much more fitting to seek remedies under property

There's also the contract with the investment advisor. You typically pay him or her a monthly or annual fee to professionally handle such investment accounts. This is a long-term contract engaged in by the custodian of the account on behalf of the actual owner. The amount is paid out of the child's funds. If the amount is not paid (typically it's paid straight out of the account, but it doesn't have to be), the advisor can pursue the child's assets for nonpayment of the amount specified in the contract, because the custodian signed that contract on behalf of the child, and so the child's assets can be pursued.

If the child doesn't actively cancel that contract once he turns 18, that continues, the investment advisor continues to be paid the advisory fees.

According to you, this should not be allowable, yet it's standard practice.

The arrangement with the investment banker may have been created by the operation of a contract (between you and the banker) but ever since that moment it takes on its own essential characteristics.

You can think of it as a machine with a switch, a switch has been set to ON so that every month... a hammer strikes and breaks the machine by a slight amount.

You and the banker entered into a contract to create this machine in the first place, as you and the banker both have agreed, the machine is to start with the switch ON. You and the banker created the machine so that when your child turns 18, the machine would automatically be transferred to him.

The machine just sits there... and because the switch is ON, every month it gets crushed a little bit.

The child turns 18.

BOOM. The machine becomes his, just as the contract said. In the original contract, you made a conditional gift to the child, a non-party (you are allowed to do that). So now the 18 year old has the machine, it still sits with the banker.

Will the machine continue to be smashed a little bit every month?

Of course.

Why? Its not because the child is assumed to be a new member of the contract by default. Its because when it was created, the switch was set to ON. Someone needs to order it turned OFF if they want the smashing to stop. And now the only person who can do that is the 18 year old. If he doesn't care or know? Well then guess what? The machine keeps smashing.

Its not really a contractual mechanism, its just the default property of the thing... and unless it gets turned OFF, it just keeps going. Now substitute the machine with the account and the smashing/button mechanism with the fees paid out

The basic point is that once an intangible property has been created, certain default conditionals are attached to it and need to be actively changed later by the owner if they want a different outcome. Its just like how a broken car will stay broken unless fixed; its indifferent to who is the owner. The investment banker's actions are consistent with what they promised to create under the initial contract, but his actions eventually become automatic and premised on certain rules; he responds to the owner, not a contracting party when the child turns 18.

[Galloism]

There's also the contract with the investment advisor. You typically pay him or her a monthly or annual fee to professionally handle such investment accounts. This is a long-term contract engaged in by the custodian of the account on behalf of the actual owner. The amount is paid out of the child's funds. If the amount is not paid (typically it's paid straight out of the account, but it doesn't have to be), the advisor can pursue the child's assets for nonpayment of the amount specified in the contract, because the custodian signed that contract on behalf of the child, and so the child's assets can be pursued.

If the child doesn't actively cancel that contract once he turns 18, that continues, the investment advisor continues to be paid the advisory fees.

According to you, this should not be allowable, yet it's standard practice.

The arrangement with the investment banker may have been created by the operation of a contract (between you and the banker) but ever since that moment it takes on its own essential characteristics.

You can think of it as a machine with a switch, a switch has been set to ON so that every month... a hammer strikes and breaks the machine by a slight amount.

You and the banker entered into a contract to create this machine in the first place, as you and the banker both have agreed, the machine is to start with the switch ON. You and the banker created the machine so that when your child turns 18, the machine would automatically be transferred to him.

The machine just sits there... and because the switch is ON, every month it gets crushed a little bit.

The child turns 18.

BOOM. The machine becomes his, just as the contract said. In the original contract, you made a conditional gift to the child, a non-party (you are allowed to do that). So now the 18 year old has the machine, it still sits with the banker.

Will the machine continue to be smashed a little bit every month?

Of course.

Why? Its not because the child is assumed to be a new member of the contract by default. Its because when it was created, the switch was set to ON. Someone needs to order it turned OFF if they want the smashing to stop. And now the only person who can do that is the 18 year old. If he doesn't care or know? Well then guess what? The machine keeps smashing.

Its not really a contractual mechanism, its just the default property of the thing... and unless it gets turned OFF, it just keeps going. Now substitute the machine with the account and the smashing/button mechanism with the fees paid out

The basic point is that once an intangible property has been created, certain default conditionals are attached to it and need to be actively changed later by the owner if they want a different outcome. Its just like how a broken car will stay broken unless fixed; its indifferent to who is the owner. The investment banker's actions are consistent with what they promised to create under the initial contract, but his actions eventually become automatic and premised on certain rules; he responds to the owner, not a contracting party when the child turns 18.

And how is this substantially different than the social contract?

Your parents put that machine in motion by getting you born here, and it keeps right on 'smashing' as you say until such time as the person cancels its operation. Your parents set it in operation - making you a citizen and putting you under the jurisdiction and authority of the government in question.

You choose to leave it that way by remaining in the country.

I don't see a difference.

[BK117B2]

The government owns land held jointly by the people...it doesn't own the rest of it. I need produce no such documents...the land was sold to me without any such condition. I also didn't purchase it from the government.

It doesn't matter. The person who sold it to you didn't have the right to cancel the sovreignty rights held by the other 300 million people.

Which is irrelevant as it neither took place nor is related to any claim of mine.

You didn't think that through. Nothing about the restaurant example even included a verbal contract. That also isn't very relevant to what you just quoted. I'll state the fact again: if you haven't gotten agreement, you don't have a contract.

Then dine & dash is ok, because you've never actually formalized an agreement. You never agreed to pay them, so you don't have to pay them.

This is really simple.

So according to you, stealing and theft are okay. I find it strange then that you seem so defensive when theft is pointed out

I received my rights in purchase from the previous owner. The government wasn't a party to that agreement.

Exactly, so it can't have surrendered its rights. Third parties can't surrender rights belonging to someone else.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with one party trying to surrender the rights of another.

And also abandoned. You seem to be operating on the false assumption that those are mutually exclusive.

Prove such abandonment.

No one else is using it, no one else has actually asserted any ownership of it. How many decades or centuries must pass until YOU consider something abandoned?

Wrong again. But by all means: back up your claim and provide the contract stating that the government was placing such conditions with the buyer's signature on the page to demonstrate agreement

Given it's held those claims longer than any of us have been alive, and it's generally up to the buyer to prove they own such rights to the land, that burden of proof is on you.

However, if you'll tell me what state you're in, I'll be happy to do some research on exactly how the land passed from goverment hands into private hands. It varied greatly depending on region and time period.

However, I suspect you'll have trouble finding any contract signed by the government where it surrendered sovreignty rights - rights it has held for a very long time period.

Wrong again. Private land in the U.S. Has mostly been in private hands for the majority of its time within the borders of the US. You're still operating on your silly notion that the government owns all the land and has not sold it off(or for much of it, ever owned it to begin with). You seem to forget that a large portion of lands in the US were privately owned before the government even existed and have continued that way to the present

[Infected Mushroom]

The arrangement with the investment banker may have been created by the operation of a contract (between you and the banker) but ever since that moment it takes on its own essential characteristics.

You can think of it as a machine with a switch, a switch has been set to ON so that every month... a hammer strikes and breaks the machine by a slight amount.

You and the banker entered into a contract to create this machine in the first place, as you and the banker both have agreed, the machine is to start with the switch ON. You and the banker created the machine so that when your child turns 18, the machine would automatically be transferred to him.

The machine just sits there... and because the switch is ON, every month it gets crushed a little bit.

The child turns 18.

BOOM. The machine becomes his, just as the contract said. In the original contract, you made a conditional gift to the child, a non-party (you are allowed to do that). So now the 18 year old has the machine, it still sits with the banker.

Will the machine continue to be smashed a little bit every month?

Of course.

Why? Its not because the child is assumed to be a new member of the contract by default. Its because when it was created, the switch was set to ON. Someone needs to order it turned OFF if they want the smashing to stop. And now the only person who can do that is the 18 year old. If he doesn't care or know? Well then guess what? The machine keeps smashing.

Its not really a contractual mechanism, its just the default property of the thing... and unless it gets turned OFF, it just keeps going. Now substitute the machine with the account and the smashing/button mechanism with the fees paid out

The basic point is that once an intangible property has been created, certain default conditionals are attached to it and need to be actively changed later by the owner if they want a different outcome. Its just like how a broken car will stay broken unless fixed; its indifferent to who is the owner. The investment banker's actions are consistent with what they promised to create under the initial contract, but his actions eventually become automatic and premised on certain rules; he responds to the owner, not a contracting party when the child turns 18.

And how is this substantially different than the social contract?

Your parents put that machine in motion by getting you born here, and it keeps right on 'smashing' as you say until such time as the person cancels its operation. Your parents set it in operation - making you a citizen and putting you under the jurisdiction and authority of the government in question.

You choose to leave it that way by remaining in the country.

I don't see a difference.

In this situation no property is created, no intangible with default characteristics (such as an account) is created. What is created is an on-going relationship of government-subject. The government unconditionally gains the right to make laws that affect the child from the very moment he is born... this is not the result of a contract, it simply happens by default. By the time the child has turned 18, he's already been treated as a subject by the government (the government makes laws that affect him, had the government wanted to, it could have enacted a tax structure to somehow tax him in some way); the government had all those rights ALREADY, by default.

In your illustration, the contract creates a property which then takes on a default characteristic unless it is later altered by the rightful owner. The property is a very narrow construct who's creation can be pointed to an exact moment, the first time the parent walked into the bank to create and engineer the thing. In the social ''contract'' example, there is no such moment. The system is simply imposed from birth.

I think where we don't see eye to eye is that you are focusing on whether taxes are ACTUALLY collected while I'm looking at the claimed power TO make laws to collect taxes.

Yes the child isn't in practice taxed until he hits 18, but the state ALWAYS had the theoretical power to tax him even before he reached 18 (if they made legislation that say, started counting tax credits against him based on how many years he's lived). That power ALREADY existed. You are treating the scenario like NOTHING happens until he hits 18, while I'm seeing it as... there's always been this power hovering over him. Non-exercise of the power should not be confused with non-existence of the power. The state always had the power. The power to levy taxes is but a subset of a broader capability to make laws, all independent of consent and certainly operative before 18.

[Infected Mushroom]

To put it another way,

if it were contractual, the state would have NO capability whatsoever to make laws that affect the child UNTIL he reached 18. The option isn't even there. The state does not have the right to, PERIOD.

But that's not how it is.

This is what it is.

The state BY DEFAULT has the power to make laws that affect the child (and in theory, it could levy taxes against the child if it chose to tax the child another way, subject to its own mechanism of law-making)... by the time the child has hit 18, he's already been subject to this default right in many ways. When he gets to 18, he has the means to ESCAPE... not to consent to a ''contract'' that didn't already start running.

The analysis should focus on... at moment X, what are the powers that each individual has over the other? What are the powers that are hovering?

You should not fixate on, what conveniently are the powers that are being used. Non-exercise of a power is not the same thing as non-existence of the power. The state gets to control you (and if it wants to, to take stuff from you) when you are born... PERIOD. We are lucky that they utilize the power responsibly but they always have the power to do otherwise. And thats not like a contract at all. It is more accurate to say, ''until you are 18, you don't have a lot in the way of capability to escape this range of this power.'

[Galloism]

It doesn't matter. The person who sold it to you didn't have the right to cancel the sovreignty rights held by the other 300 million people.

Which is irrelevant as it neither took place nor is related to any claim of mine.

It is - you claim that the government has no sovreignty rights, including the right to tax. It has been claiming those rights for a very long time, unchallenged. Whoever might have controlled those sovreignty rights has long since died, and therefore the government's claim is the most valid claim there is.

Then dine & dash is ok, because you've never actually formalized an agreement. You never agreed to pay them, so you don't have to pay them.

This is really simple.

So according to you, stealing and theft are okay. I find it strange then that you seem so defensive when theft is pointed out

No, according to me implicit agreements can exist if they are common, standard, and known. You've contested that - stating that you never EXPLICITLY agreed to taxation, and therefore you did not agree. Your actions, you think, are nonsufficient.

I am pointing out that if actions are insufficient to demonstrate consent, then the diners do not consent to paying unless they specifically state they consent to pay.

I understand implicit consent. You implicitly consented to the taxation by living here. You are always free to leave. You consented to property tax by buying a property which you know is subject to property tax as a claim on the land. It's the same as buying land where the mineral rights have already been sold off - you can't go back and try to cancel the rights of the mineral rights holder because some jackass didn't put it in the contract. You also can't claim harm because you knew about it beforehand.

Exactly, so it can't have surrendered its rights. Third parties can't surrender rights belonging to someone else.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with one party trying to surrender the rights of another.

Since the government has been claiming and exercising sovreignty rights unchallenged for over a hundred years (thousands in some countries, somewhere between 100 and 250 in the United States), and no one has reasonably challenged that, any previous claims to sovreignty rights have been abandoned.

Since the government is the longest and oldest collective claimant to those sovreignty rights, and has continued to hold such rights continuously through new owners, it still maintains them - per YOUR rules.

Prove such abandonment.

No one else is using it, no one else has actually asserted any ownership of it.

Wrong. The government has asserted sovreignty rights over the land for the entire duration, including during the time when you refer to it as "abandoned". Asserting and exercising sovreignty rights is a use of land, in the same way that maintaining my mineral rights is a "use" of a sort. It doesn't disappear if I don't get around to examining the ground for 50 years.

How many decades or centuries must pass until YOU consider something abandoned?

Well, ideally if, after a reasonable time no owner nor heir can be located, then the property should revert to the government, the general ownership rights (not including sovreignty) should then be sold for cash at a fair rate, ideally via competitive bidding, and the funds held until an heir can be located.

If no heir is located after a reasonable time, mark it on the books as an accounts payable and wait roughly 50 years to see if one ever turns up. After that point, the funds revert to the treasury.

Given it's held those claims longer than any of us have been alive, and it's generally up to the buyer to prove they own such rights to the land, that burden of proof is on you.

However, if you'll tell me what state you're in, I'll be happy to do some research on exactly how the land passed from goverment hands into private hands. It varied greatly depending on region and time period.

However, I suspect you'll have trouble finding any contract signed by the government where it surrendered sovreignty rights - rights it has held for a very long time period.

Wrong again. Private land in the U.S. Has mostly been in private hands for the majority of its time within the borders of the US. You're still operating on your silly notion that the government owns all the land and has not sold it off(or for much of it, ever owned it to begin with). You seem to forget that a large portion of lands in the US were privately owned before the government even existed and have continued that way to the present

Actually, most of the US was purchased outright.

Alaska was purchased for cash, as was the Louisiana purchase. Those sovreignty rights were bought and paid for.

The English who maintained sovreignty rights over the original thirteen colonies abandoned that claim some time ago. It was then claimed by new owners - each of the thirteen states organized under the articles of confederation. They reorganized using the constitution and formed the United States of America, which assumed those same rights held by the states that came before them.

Texas voluntarily surrendered its sovreignty rights to the United States, as did California. The remainder of the sovreignty rights in the continental US was abandoned by the American Indians long ago - some through treaties, and some via... well, extinction.

Then there's the territories, and those are more complicated. Puerto Rico, if memory serves, was purchased from Spain.

Hawaii voluntarily surrendered their sovreignty to the United States.

I don't remember the stories on Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, etc.

[BK117B2]

The issue is that you created contradictory straw men and falsely claimed they were my ideas.

My position does not contradict itself.

Well, when it really boils down to "governments don't have a right to sovreignty", it's true that's not contradictory, except if you try to compare it with reality.

Governments don't have any rights. They can only act by proxy for people

For sovereignty, that'll all depend on which definition you are using.

No, people have no right to supreme authority over other people.

[Galloism]

And how is this substantially different than the social contract?

Your parents put that machine in motion by getting you born here, and it keeps right on 'smashing' as you say until such time as the person cancels its operation. Your parents set it in operation - making you a citizen and putting you under the jurisdiction and authority of the government in question.

You choose to leave it that way by remaining in the country.

I don't see a difference.

In this situation no property is created, no intangible with default characteristics (such as an account) is created. What is created is an on-going relationship of government-subject. The government unconditionally gains the right to make laws that affect the child from the very moment he is born... this is not the result of a contract, it simply happens by default. By the time the child has turned 18, he's already been treated as a subject by the government (the government makes laws that affect him, had the government wanted to, it could have enacted a tax structure to somehow tax him in some way); the government had all those rights ALREADY, by default.

Just as the investment advisor already has the right to sue the child for nonpayment of fees, and has certain responsibilities towards that child when it comes to that child's assets. It can be done right at birth, even, although that might be sort of rude to your wife to be in a Wells Fargo investments office instead of the delivery room.

Point being, the investment advisor is not restricted to the investment account in recovering his or her fees. He can attach the child's other assets, such as if he has more than one investment account with more than one company, bank accounts, real estate - anything the child owns can be sued because of the contract agreed to by the child's custodian.

If they keep the account after turning 18, they are giving implicit consent to the continuation of such advice and the resulting fees, and the results from failure to pay if they fail to pay the fees.

In your illustration, the contract creates a property which then takes on a default characteristic unless it is later altered by the rightful owner. The property is a very narrow construct who's creation can be pointed to an exact moment, the first time the parent walked into the bank to create and engineer the thing. In the social ''contract'' example, there is no such moment. The system is simply imposed from birth.

You just identified the exact moment. Read your own statement. Did you find the exact moment?

I think where we don't see eye to eye is that you are focusing on whether taxes are ACTUALLY collected while I'm looking at the claimed power TO make laws to collect taxes.

You're wrong about the facts of things anyway. Children ARE taxed, if their income is sufficiently high TO be taxed. In the United States, the parents can elect to treat the child's income as their income for tax purposes if they want to, but they are not required to.

If they do not, children are subject to taxation and must file tax returns.

Incidentally, childrens' own income can be used to support them by the child's guardian. This may have certain tax effects, though.

Yes the child isn't in practice taxed until he hits 18, but the state ALWAYS had the theoretical power to tax him even before he reached 18 (if they made legislation that say, started counting tax credits against him based on how many years he's lived). That power ALREADY existed. You are treating the scenario like NOTHING happens until he hits 18, while I'm seeing it as... there's always been this power hovering over him. Non-exercise of the power should not be confused with non-existence of the power. The state always had the power. The power to levy taxes is but a subset of a broader capability to make laws, all independent of consent and certainly operative before 18.

So? The child's guardian caused that to happen by making the child a citizen of the United States. This happened at the moment of birth if the birth occurred within our territory. If it occurred outside, that can be more complicated.

[Galloism]

Well, when it really boils down to "governments don't have a right to sovreignty", it's true that's not contradictory, except if you try to compare it with reality.

Governments don't have any rights. They can only act by proxy for people

For sovereignty, that'll all depend on which definition you are using.

No, people have no right to supreme authority over other people.

Let anarchy reign!

No, we have let the group have limited authority over the individual so we can have a functioning modern society. This includes taxation. We also have prevented this from going too far by encoding rights into the supreme law of the land, preserving the rights of individuals against overreach by the collective.

[BK117B2]

Which is irrelevant as it neither took place nor is related to any claim of mine.

It is - you claim that the government has no sovreignty rights, including the right to tax. It has been claiming those rights for a very long time, unchallenged. Whoever might have controlled those sovreignty rights has long since died, and therefore the government's claim is the most valid claim there is.

You still seem to be confusing government for an actual thing in and of itself rather than just a proxy for a group of people.

So according to you, stealing and theft are okay. I find it strange then that you seem so defensive when theft is pointed out

No, according to me implicit agreements can exist if they are common, standard, and known. You've contested that - stating that you never EXPLICITLY agreed to taxation, and therefore you did not agree. Your actions, you think, are nonsufficient.

I am pointing out that if actions are insufficient to demonstrate consent, then the diners do not consent to paying unless they specifically state they consent to pay.

You just are not being honest. I have explicitly agreed to taxation. There are a few people who have explicitly refused any such agreement. Pretty pathetic that you're even making false claims about what I think.

I understand implicit consent. You implicitly consented to the taxation by living here. You are always free to leave. You consented to property tax by buying a property which you know is subject to property tax as a claim on the land. It's the same as buying land where the mineral rights have already been sold off - you can't go back and try to cancel the rights of the mineral rights holder because some jackass didn't put it in the contract. You also can't claim harm because you knew about it beforehand.

That's not very believable given that you've yet to demonstrate even a decent understanding of the basic concept of consent.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with one party trying to surrender the rights of another.

Since the government has been claiming and exercising sovreignty rights unchallenged for over a hundred years (thousands in some countries, somewhere between 100 and 250 in the United States), and no one has reasonably challenged that, any previous claims to sovreignty rights have been abandoned.

Since the government is the longest and oldest collective claimant to those sovreignty rights, and has continued to hold such rights continuously through new owners, it still maintains them - per YOUR rules.

There you go again with the straw men...making up rules and attributing them to me.

No one else is using it, no one else has actually asserted any ownership of it.

Wrong. The government has asserted sovreignty rights over the land for the entire duration, including during the time when you refer to it as "abandoned". Asserting and exercising sovreignty rights is a use of land, in the same way that maintaining my mineral rights is a "use" of a sort. It doesn't disappear if I don't get around to examining the ground for 50 years.

How many decades or centuries must pass until YOU consider something abandoned?

Well, ideally if, after a reasonable time no owner nor heir can be located, then the property should revert to the government, the general ownership rights (not including sovreignty) should then be sold for cash at a fair rate, ideally via competitive bidding, and the funds held until an heir can be located.

If no heir is located after a reasonable time, mark it on the books as an accounts payable and wait roughly 50 years to see if one ever turns up. After that point, the funds revert to the treasury.

Wrong again. Private land in the U.S. Has mostly been in private hands for the majority of its time within the borders of the US. You're still operating on your silly notion that the government owns all the land and has not sold it off(or for much of it, ever owned it to begin with). You seem to forget that a large portion of lands in the US were privately owned before the government even existed and have continued that way to the present

Actually, most of the US was purchased outright.

Alaska was purchased for cash, as was the Louisiana purchase. Those sovreignty rights were bought and paid for.

The English who maintained sovreignty rights over the original thirteen colonies abandoned that claim some time ago. It was then claimed by new owners - each of the thirteen states organized under the articles of confederation. They reorganized using the constitution and formed the United States of America, which assumed those same rights held by the states that came before them.

Texas voluntarily surrendered its sovreignty rights to the United States, as did California. The remainder of the sovreignty rights in the continental US was abandoned by the American Indians long ago - some through treaties, and some via... well, extinction.

Then there's the territories, and those are more complicated. Puerto Rico, if memory serves, was purchased from Spain.

Hawaii voluntarily surrendered their sovreignty to the United States.

I don't remember the stories on Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, etc.

Now you're confusing your sovereignty with property rights. Why give up on the discussion of one thing to try and drag it over to a discussion of another?

[BK117B2]

Governments don't have any rights. They can only act by proxy for people

For sovereignty, that'll all depend on which definition you are using.

No, people have no right to supreme authority over other people.

Let anarchy reign!

No, we have let the group have limited authority over the individual so we can have a functioning modern society. This includes taxation. We also have prevented this from going too far by encoding rights into the supreme law of the land, preserving the rights of individuals against overreach by the collective.

The group has only the authority which individuals grant it.

There is no contradiction in my position, only in the straw men you created to avoid addressing my position. That's your fault, not mine.

[Maqo]

Sorry, the purchaser has to prove they have the sovreignty rights.

I received my rights in purchase from the previous owner. The government wasn't a party to that agreement

And where did the previous owner get their rights from? What rights did they sell you?

They can only sell you the rights they got from the previous owner... Repeat until you find the previous owner is 'the state' and see what rights they actually gave up and what conditions they attached. You'll find they still retain control over the land. None of the intermediate sales can divest the state of that right because that right was never the title holders to sell.



Looking at my property that I 'own', it says
"Record of Certificate of Title under the Transfer of Land Act 1893
The person described in the first schedule is the register proprietor of an estate in fee simple in the land described below subject to the reservations, conditions and depth limit contained in the original grant and to the limitations, interests encumbrances and notifications shown in the second schedule."

My agreement with the government is there. I own title to land under the conditions of the Act. I'm the proprietor of an estate in fee simple (ie, the state still retains ultimate ownership). I'm subject to the conditions of the original grant.
The state doesn't need to literally be a signatory to my purchase of land, because they were a signatory to the ORIGINAL purchase of land, and all subsequent sales can only transfer the rights given under the original sale. What I have been sold is literally an agreement with the government - I can't then say I disagree with it.

[Galloism]

It is - you claim that the government has no sovreignty rights, including the right to tax. It has been claiming those rights for a very long time, unchallenged. Whoever might have controlled those sovreignty rights has long since died, and therefore the government's claim is the most valid claim there is.

You still seem to be confusing government for an actual thing in and of itself rather than just a proxy for a group of people.

The owners of the government, acting collectively through the government, then. It's more of a mouthful, but it's still the same thing.

No, according to me implicit agreements can exist if they are common, standard, and known. You've contested that - stating that you never EXPLICITLY agreed to taxation, and therefore you did not agree. Your actions, you think, are nonsufficient.

I am pointing out that if actions are insufficient to demonstrate consent, then the diners do not consent to paying unless they specifically state they consent to pay.

You just are not being honest. I have explicitly agreed to taxation. There are a few people who have explicitly refused any such agreement. Pretty pathetic that you're even making false claims about what I think.

Then their actions implicitly agreeing overrides their protestations.

I understand implicit consent. You implicitly consented to the taxation by living here. You are always free to leave. You consented to property tax by buying a property which you know is subject to property tax as a claim on the land. It's the same as buying land where the mineral rights have already been sold off - you can't go back and try to cancel the rights of the mineral rights holder because some jackass didn't put it in the contract. You also can't claim harm because you knew about it beforehand.

That's not very believable given that you've yet to demonstrate even a decent understanding of the basic concept of consent.

Bwahahahahaha.

Since the government has been claiming and exercising sovreignty rights unchallenged for over a hundred years (thousands in some countries, somewhere between 100 and 250 in the United States), and no one has reasonably challenged that, any previous claims to sovreignty rights have been abandoned.

Since the government is the longest and oldest collective claimant to those sovreignty rights, and has continued to hold such rights continuously through new owners, it still maintains them - per YOUR rules.

There you go again with the straw men...making up rules and attributing them to me.

You clearly don't see the logical conclusions of your own arguments.

Wrong. The government has asserted sovreignty rights over the land for the entire duration, including during the time when you refer to it as "abandoned". Asserting and exercising sovreignty rights is a use of land, in the same way that maintaining my mineral rights is a "use" of a sort. It doesn't disappear if I don't get around to examining the ground for 50 years.



Well, ideally if, after a reasonable time no owner nor heir can be located, then the property should revert to the government, the general ownership rights (not including sovreignty) should then be sold for cash at a fair rate, ideally via competitive bidding, and the funds held until an heir can be located.

If no heir is located after a reasonable time, mark it on the books as an accounts payable and wait roughly 50 years to see if one ever turns up. After that point, the funds revert to the treasury.


Actually, most of the US was purchased outright.

Alaska was purchased for cash, as was the Louisiana purchase. Those sovreignty rights were bought and paid for.

The English who maintained sovreignty rights over the original thirteen colonies abandoned that claim some time ago. It was then claimed by new owners - each of the thirteen states organized under the articles of confederation. They reorganized using the constitution and formed the United States of America, which assumed those same rights held by the states that came before them.

Texas voluntarily surrendered its sovreignty rights to the United States, as did California. The remainder of the sovreignty rights in the continental US was abandoned by the American Indians long ago - some through treaties, and some via... well, extinction.

Then there's the territories, and those are more complicated. Puerto Rico, if memory serves, was purchased from Spain.

Hawaii voluntarily surrendered their sovreignty to the United States.

I don't remember the stories on Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, etc.

Now you're confusing your sovereignty with property rights. Why give up on the discussion of one thing to try and drag it over to a discussion of another?

Sovreignty rights are a subset of property rights, in the same way mineral rights are a subset of property rights. This is why Russia had the right to sell Alaska to the United States. It had a form of property rights known as sovreignty over the territory of Alaska.

This is why France had the right to sell Louisiana to the United States - same reason. They owned certain rights to that property - the right of sovreignty. Those rights can be bought, sold, or traded. They've been bought sold and traded between countries for... well, basically forever.

[TomKirk]

Property does not exist, at all, in the absence of government. Possession, of whatever you can physically hold in your hands, is not an adequate substitute.

[Hurdegaryp]

Property does not exist, at all, in the absence of government. Possession, of whatever you can physically hold in your hands, is not an adequate substitute.

When the law is replaced by savages with guns, everything desintegrates quite quickly.

[BK117B2]

I received my rights in purchase from the previous owner. The government wasn't a party to that agreement

And where did the previous owner get their rights from? What rights did they sell you?

They can only sell you the rights they got from the previous owner... Repeat until you find the previous owner is 'the state' and see what rights they actually gave up and what conditions they attached. You'll find they still retain control over the land. None of the intermediate sales can divest the state of that right because that right was never the title holders to sell.



Looking at my property that I 'own', it says
"Record of Certificate of Title under the Transfer of Land Act 1893
The person described in the first schedule is the register proprietor of an estate in fee simple in the land described below subject to the reservations, conditions and depth limit contained in the original grant and to the limitations, interests encumbrances and notifications shown in the second schedule."

My agreement with the government is there. I own title to land under the conditions of the Act. I'm the proprietor of an estate in fee simple (ie, the state still retains ultimate ownership). I'm subject to the conditions of the original grant.
The state doesn't need to literally be a signatory to my purchase of land, because they were a signatory to the ORIGINAL purchase of land, and all subsequent sales can only transfer the rights given under the original sale. What I have been sold is literally an agreement with the government - I can't then say I disagree with it.

That's not actually what fee simple means.

As for state ownership, as I have already pointed out: much of the private land in the US was privately owned before the US government ever existed and passed down without any period of ownership by the people as a whole. For that land, government has never even had the opportunity to retain certain powers when transfering it as it has never had the opportunity to transfer it at all.

[BK117B2]

You still seem to be confusing government for an actual thing in and of itself rather than just a proxy for a group of people.

The owners of the government, acting collectively through the government, then. It's more of a mouthful, but it's still the same thing.

So you acknowledge that sovereignty rights (such as they exist) belong to people

You just are not being honest. I have explicitly agreed to taxation. There are a few people who have explicitly refused any such agreement. Pretty pathetic that you're even making false claims about what I think.

Then their actions implicitly agreeing overrides their protestations.

They haven't implicitly agreed, and you have demonstrated that you don't actually know the meaning of implicit.

There you go again with the straw men...making up rules and attributing them to me.

You clearly don't see the logical conclusions of your own arguments.

You're thinking of the logical conclusion of your straw men. Of course, there was nothing logical in your decision to create straw men rather than address my actual statements

Now you're confusing your sovereignty with property rights. Why give up on the discussion of one thing to try and drag it over to a discussion of another?

Sovreignty rights are a subset of property rights, in the same way mineral rights are a subset of property rights. This is why Russia had the right to sell Alaska to the United States. It had a form of property rights known as sovreignty over the territory of Alaska.

This is why France had the right to sell Louisiana to the United States - same reason. They owned certain rights to that property - the right of sovreignty. Those rights can be bought, sold, or traded. They've been bought sold and traded between countries for... well, basically forever.

The original colonies were not acquired that way. Even among territory acquired that way, the sellers never owned or had any sovereign right to most of it. A few Russian trappers living near the coast does not magically transfer the ownership of property from the individuals actually owning Alaska to the Russian government, and Russia never even attempted to conquer it, so even by your concept of having a right of/by conquest, Russia couldn't actually sell the land. Remember, you can only transfer that to which you already have right

[Galloism]

The owners of the government, acting collectively through the government, then. It's more of a mouthful, but it's still the same thing.

So you acknowledge that sovereignty rights (such as they exist) belong to people

Acting collectively through a governmental entity, yes. Those people get votes on how to exercise those sovereignty rights.

Then their actions implicitly agreeing overrides their protestations.

They haven't implicitly agreed, and you have demonstrated that you don't actually know the meaning of implicit.

Implicit means:

implied though not plainly expressed.

So if your actions demonstrate consent, such as by remaining in the territory of a country expressing sovereignty or ordering food from a restaurant knowing that such restaurant requires payment, then you have given consent, even if not expressly stated.

You clearly don't see the logical conclusions of your own arguments.

You're thinking of the logical conclusion of your straw men. Of course, there was nothing logical in your decision to create straw men rather than address my actual statements

Blah blah blah. Stop being a broken record and explain why the conclusion doesn't follow your premise then.

Sovreignty rights are a subset of property rights, in the same way mineral rights are a subset of property rights. This is why Russia had the right to sell Alaska to the United States. It had a form of property rights known as sovreignty over the territory of Alaska.

This is why France had the right to sell Louisiana to the United States - same reason. They owned certain rights to that property - the right of sovreignty. Those rights can be bought, sold, or traded. They've been bought sold and traded between countries for... well, basically forever.

The original colonies were not acquired that way.

No, they were acquired through right of rebellion, or, earlier, via settlement under the authority of the British Crown, depending on your persepective.

Even among territory acquired that way, the sellers never owned or had any sovereign right to most of it. A few Russian trappers living near the coast does not magically transfer the ownership of property from the individuals actually owning Alaska to the Russian government, and Russia never even attempted to conquer it, so even by your concept of having a right of/by conquest, Russia couldn't actually sell the land. Remember, you can only transfer that to which you already have right

Quite, but you said that once the original owners are all dead and no one is using the land (or, in this case, claiming those rights over the land), anyone can claim it. Much of Alaska was uninhabited. Therefore, the Russian government, acting collectively for its people, had the right to claim that uninhabited and unclaimed land.

All the original owners of the rest of the land are now dead and not claiming any sovereignty rights. Russia is still here, acting collectively for its people. So is America. How long does Russia have to wait after all the original claimants to sovereignty are dead to have valid claim to sovereignty rights? Or America?

[BK117B2]

So you acknowledge that sovereignty rights (such as they exist) belong to people

Acting collectively through a governmental entity, yes. Those people get votes on how to exercise those sovereignty rights.

They haven't implicitly agreed, and you have demonstrated that you don't actually know the meaning of implicit.

Implicit means:

implied though not plainly expressed.

So if your actions demonstrate consent, such as by remaining in the territory of a country expressing sovereignty or ordering food from a restaurant knowing that such restaurant requires payment, then you have given consent, even if not expressly stated.

Which means two important things that you keep missing: expressly stating your position makes it impossible for it to be implicit any more. Implicit agreement can only exist where agreement exists. If they don't actually agree, it just means that you are making a false assumption about their agreement.

You're thinking of the logical conclusion of your straw men. Of course, there was nothing logical in your decision to create straw men rather than address my actual statements

Blah blah blah. Stop being a broken record and explain why the conclusion doesn't follow your premise then.

Due to the obvious fact that it isn't based on my premise. Start being honest and end your straw men. Try addressing my actual statements for a change.

Even among territory acquired that way, the sellers never owned or had any sovereign right to most of it. A few Russian trappers living near the coast does not magically transfer the ownership of property from the individuals actually owning Alaska to the Russian government, and Russia never even attempted to conquer it, so even by your concept of having a right of/by conquest, Russia couldn't actually sell the land. Remember, you can only transfer that to which you already have right

Quite, but you said that once the original owners are all dead and no one is using the land (or, in this case, claiming those rights over the land), anyone can claim it. Much of Alaska was uninhabited. Therefore, the Russian government, acting collectively for its people, had the right to claim that uninhabited and unclaimed land.

But they had no right to claim the rest of it. Try to keep up

All the original owners of the rest of the land are now dead and not claiming any sovereignty rights. Russia is still here, acting collectively for its people. So is America. How long does Russia have to wait after all the original claimants to sovereignty are dead to have valid claim to sovereignty rights? Or America?

Do you have any evidence that Russia is still pressing claims to Alaska? Do you have any source that it ever acquired any such rights from the natives in the first place?

[Sociobiology]

To put it another way,

if it were contractual, the state would have NO capability whatsoever to make laws that affect the child UNTIL he reached 18. The option isn't even there. The state does not have the right to, PERIOD.

why? You CAN make contracts that effect children.

You increasingly show how little you know about contracts