SB

[Dale Eastman]

Thomas Sowell @ThomasSowell
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.

To feel entitled to not pay back into the very system that enables your wealth is like feeling entitled by the freedom they risk everything for to disrespect the military that defends your way of life. This is supposed to be a self-sustaining 'system' that lifts all boats, not a ponzi scheme.

Obviously your suggestion would generate less waste. But it could also generate horrific byproducts that the waste-savings would by no means make up for.

I said it *could* generate horrific byproducts, I didn't say it would. But it's easy to imagine the problems.

That said, here's my problem with dug-in political factions: each position that is not motivated purely by greed is a theory of what could make things better for everyone, not a method guaranteed to be better for everyone.

Nobody can know what will certainly work. We found out that communism falls short of what its idealists aspired to because of elements in human nature that were not factored into the method.

Any theory of organization is subject to unforeseeables and thus non-easily reversible tragedies of the commons.

Thus, the only reasonable discussions of these matters are philosophical, i.e., where we discuss them as though we don't have a dog in the race (even though we may and inevitably do).

But this 'certainty' that one's favorite alternative system will be better than a current system known to have flaws is, out the gate, the presentation of theory as *fact*, so naturally becomes easily suspect as motivated by greed rather than ideals.

When speculating on the potential of an idealized ideological maneuver, it is unbecoming of the philosophical method to sound-off as a zealot rather than an inquiring skeptic, for literally *none* of us are clairvoyant, and thus can 'know' what would be most fair and bring the most happiness for sure.

Certainly complex topics reduced to memes is the least philosophocal way to approach ideological ideas.

Dale Eastman answer: mutual protection from tragedies of the commons where each person acting in their own otherwise reasonable self-interest will degrade an aspect of the commons for everyone unless obligated to conform to regulations.

How is that service to be paid for?

Dale Eastman it *is* paid for by taxation as far as I know. How it *should* be paid for may be debated. What do you think?

➽ What do you think?

I think you and I have a collision of ideology(ies).

How does calling it "taxation make it not theft? I am assuming that I correctly determined your implied understanding that taxation is theft. Else why would you question how it should be paid for with other methods? Please correct me if I am wrong.

➽ How it *should* be paid for may be debated.

Yes, please. Let us discuss this issue of how protecting the commons should be protected and paid for.
(I appreciate that you are aware of the Tragedy of the Commons.)

I am also aware that any sidewalk or road in any village, town, city, megalopolis, or state are the commons. I think the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of all these different commons will need examination.

This segues to Where did those calling themselves the state get a Right-to-Rule and a Right-to-Initiate violence?

What if nobody wants this "service"?

Dale Eastman you wrote: //How does calling it "taxation make it not theft? I am assuming that I correctly determined your implied understanding that taxation is theft. Else why would you question how it should be paid for with other methods? Please correct me if I am wrong.//

I'm not sure we have a conflict, but words might be getting in the way. I did not say it should or shouldn't be paid with other methods besides taxation, I only said that's how it is paid currently, and I also said that how it should be paid could be debated.

I agree with Proudhon that property is theft. But, given we permit property, then we are thus ensconced within a kleptocracy and our discussion proceeds under the paradigm of what 'should' happen within a kleptocracy. This is much more complicated that talking about what should happen in a truly free anarchic society.

If you are advocating for no property, then the pardigm shifts and we would agree that both taxation and property are theft. If you are advocating for property (which is theft from the commons) but not for taxes (which you regard as theft from its rightful earners), then you may be in a sorites purgatory contemplating the boundary between good theft and bad theft.

I have just downloaded his book of the same name.

Source: https://dn790005.ca.archive.org/0/items/property-is-theft-a-pierre-joseph-proudhon-anthology/Property%20Is%20Theft%21_%20A%20Pierre-Joseph%20Proudh%20-%20Pierre-Joseph%20Proudhon.pdf

1300 pages. I will get back to you once I understand Proudhon's definition of property. Using that to give me an idea as to what you might mean & intend by using the word property.

I'm also tagging my Georgia acquaintance in case he's interested in the convo.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman fine, but a nice abbreviation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Thank you for the link. What is there, written by Proudhon, I've just read from the first chapter of his book. (https://dn790005.ca.archive.org/.../Property%20Is%20Theft...)