Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Nope. The privilege holder initiates violence when he forcibly strips others of their rights to liberty and appropriates those rights as his private property.

I'm not the one who has murdered billions in pursuit of unearned wealth. Landowners are.

 

Are you referring to the state?

 

Private landowners helped by the state. By forcibly depriving others of their liberty rights to use what nature provided for all, private landowners have murdered billions of innocent people by forcing them into poverty and starvation.

 

So you're talking about the state privately owning land? How evil.

 

No, that part was merely the statement of the proposition that government is necessary to avoid anarchy.

The proof is in the following:

Humans have both conscious and unconscious motivation.

Someone described this as "acting 90% out of emotion and 10% out of rational thought (via the "thinking brain" in the cerebral cortex, which spends most of its capacity justifying the ego's self-interestedness).

I describe it as acting out of BOTH conscious co-operation (equivalent to Ted's voluntary co-operation/agreement in his Anarchist fantasy), AND unconscious competition* based in instinct, which if left unchecked by government, will result in anarchy (with a small 'a')

*Note: all competitions need a referee, to avoid domination of one self-interested individual or group by another self-interested individual or group.

 

Ideally worldwide, otherwise, tax heaven countries should be asked to contributed more to UN, or be blacklisted if there is reason to believe that they are accomplice to money laundering, criminal syndicate or tax evasion activities etc.

 

Well the top 1% worldwide is 35000 dollars a year. The top .1% is 80,000 dollars a year.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

People have no idea how good they have it in the first world. Should they not be heavily taxed to support those living on a dollar a day?

 

Why does the referee need to be the state? Why couldn't it just be a private citizen?

 

1) It's the definition of social responsibility. You are choosing to pull your own weight, rather than add your weight to your neighbour's.

2) Security comes from not having to carry your neighbour's weight, as well as your own.

3) Our 'individual responsibility to the community' is in NOT MAKING OURSELVES A BURDEN TO THAT COMMUNITY.

4) Universal as in 'compulsory'? Yeah, good luck with that. You're going to need it.

 

That is logically impossible: the state is by definition not private. See? You have to retreat to bald self-contradiction.

Evil is deliberate abrogation of others' rights with intent to inflict injustice. That describes private landowning. It does not describe repayment of publicly created land rent to, and for the purposes and benefit of, the public that creates it.

 

The state owns all land. It is the ultimate landlord.

 

No. Fix the injustice there before you try importing it here.

 

No. No one can own land. When the landlord is the source of the land's value, as government and the community are, it is indisputable justice for the landlord to require payment of that market value from those who take the benefits it creates. When the landlord is NOT the source of the land's value, as private landowners are not, it is indisputable INjustice for the landlord to appropriate for himself the value government and the community have created.

 

Great points. Thank you!

 

Me! Me!

See the problem...?

 

So the state can't keep me off a piece of land?

 

Not really. Would you like to elaborate a bit?

 

Who is that private citizen going to be, why, and how will they be held accountable?

 

It can keep you off a piece that someone else has paid for others to be kept off -- i.e., for exclusive tenure. There's no way to have an economy above the hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding level except with exclusive tenure. You know this. The point is to make exclusive tenure just instead of unjust by requiring just compensation from those who get it and to those who consequently have their liberty rights abrogated by exclusive landholders.

But of course, you already know all this, because I have explained it to you dozens of times.

 

Evil state! Keeping me from use what I would otherwise be at liberty to use.

 

Chosen by the disputing parties.

 

the underlying reason is: Humans - including "a private citizen" - have both conscious and unconscious motivation, etc outlined in #833.

Still on the no such thing as society myth?

 

And when they don't agree...?

 

<sigh> It is the exclusive private landholder who does that, not the state, as I have proved to you many times. The state just makes sure it is done in an orderly way, rather than by violence.

 

So the state won't keep me from using any land I choose?