utter contempt — Xtrix
I'm not excusing it. I've just given a perfectly clear argument justifying it using foundational principles you and I have just agreed on. We agreed on the need to manage common resources and we agreed that the current crop of humanity (for whatever reason) cannot be trusted to manage those resources voluntarily.
If you want to go back and dispute one of those points then do so.
It's not passive. As ↪Xtrix has pointed out. Just as you can change corporations if you don't like their service, you can change countries if you don't like their deal. The government of the country are the legal owners of the legal entity and they offer a deal to anyone born into (or moving into) their country. If you don't like the deal, move out of their country.
Anti-competitive practises as a direct result of deregulation lead to less efficient use of resources and more expensive goods. — Benkei
The results of neoliberalism are right in front of us. This is what comes of approaching “laissez faire.” — Xtrix
You didn’t justify taxation. — NOS4A2
Deal? With which official did you make a deal with on the date of your birth? — NOS4A2
I have changed services, changed corporations, and changed countries. One was significantly more difficult and life-altering, taking years to become official and involving much effort — NOS4A2
zero negotiation — NOS4A2
It was as if running from one plantation to the next. — NOS4A2
The rest were easy. — NOS4A2
I’m not sure I’ve seen your justification for taxation in this thread, or I have forgotten. If you wouldn’t mind reiterating it or linking to it I can provide a response. — NOS4A2
I don’t think you made any deal with Harold Wilson — NOS4A2
I don’t think anyone can own a country — NOS4A2
I have given no group of people or any institution the right to dictate how I conduct myself. — NOS4A2
One dictates my behavior by threat and force, the other by agreement. — NOS4A2
I don’t think a government should make it easier for me, and never expressed anything like that. — NOS4A2
I have only said the relationship is immoral, employs compulsory cooperation rather than voluntary cooperation. — NOS4A2
...a state is a corporate subentity with a military. — Streetlight
NOS is (willfully?) confused — ZzzoneiroCosm
Do not be charitable with fucks like him. — Streetlight
...a state is a corporate subentity with a military... — Streetlight
He likes corporate power. He sees no issue with it. — Streetlight
...a state is a corporate subentity with a military. — Streetlight
I'm very tired of people putting down to ignorance what can be explained by the fact that some people are genuinely horrible people. — Streetlight
I gave it in the quote - there's a need to manage common resources, experience has shown that in our current hierarchical society people do not do so voluntarily. You agreed with both of those principles. Hence it follows there's a need to manage common resources without relying on spontaneous voluntary action.
Neither do I, I'm following your logic. If no-one can own a country then I shouldn't have to pay for any property, right? Since no-one can own it? Why do you think no-one can own a country, but people can own a factory?
No it doesn't you're completely free to leave. They're not using any threat or force to compel you to stay. Of course, if you do stay, then you're agreeing to their rules, one of which is that they can throw you in jail if you break any of the rules. If you don't like that rule, move.
You may be right. I've called him a monster above, and I stand by that. What you see as my charity aligns neatly with Nietzche's caveat:
"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster...”
It doesn’t follow for me that a compulsory tax or compulsory cooperation is required to manage common resources. — NOS4A2
By and large people come to own a factory by legitimate means, states do not acquire a territory by legitimate means. Factories deal with their employees through legitimate means, utilizing contract and voluntary cooperation, states do not, and utilize force and compulsory cooperation. — NOS4A2
states ... utilize force and compulsory cooperation. — NOS4A2
I don’t require a passport to leave a job and find another. I don’t need to pass through a border and have my motives questioned if I leave a job and find another. I do not need to sell my property and sever ties with the people I know to change jobs. I do not need to become an immigrant and go through any immigration process to change jobs. I do not need to learn new languages, customs, laws, just to fit in a new job. I do not face deportation if I find a new job. — NOS4A2
OK. How else?
You're just using 'legitimate' here to mean 'means I agree with'. On what grounds are the means by which factory owner come by their factories 'legitimate' which then excludes the means by which, say, Queen Elizabeth came by England?
You've not answered why the state should care how difficult you find it to emigrate. If you don't like the rules, move. If you find moving onerous, how exactly is that my problem, or the state's problem, or anyone's problem but yours?
If I personally find emigration a breeze, but am terrified of job interviews, do I get to claim corporations are immoral for making move jobs every time they change my employment terms?
I thought you were going to justify taxation. — NOS4A2
There are two means by which man can satisfy his needs, through one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, or through robbery and confiscation. The private citizen, whether factory owner or factory worker, engages in the former, the state engages in the latter. — NOS4A2
You’re comparing immigration to finding a new job. It’s a false equivalency. — NOS4A2
I am. X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.
So you'd rule against inheritance then, which is neither "one’s own labor" nor "the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others". That's a good start, but it doesn't differentiate Queen Elizabeth from most factory owners.
Just saying it's a false equivalency doesn't make it one by magic. It's harder. That's all you've given me so far. If I find emigration easy but moving jobs hard does that make my employer immoral for changing my contract to terms I don't like?
X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X. — Isaac
Taxes need doing. That’s a justification for taxes. Doesn’t compute. — NOS4A2
X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.
I would not rule against inheritance, and never implied any such thing. — NOS4A2
A monarch is the head of state, a factory owner is a subject of the state. — NOS4A2
I’ve given reasons why they are not equivalent, all of which were not addressed. — NOS4A2
This seems more accurate to me:
X needs doing. Y is the only way to do X. That's a justification for Y. — ZzzoneiroCosm
X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.
I did address them. You just ignored it. Your list makes emigration harder than moving job. If I find emigration easier than moving job, is my boss immoral for changing my contract unfavorably?
Or, put another way, if states made emigration easier, would they be off the hook?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.